One document matched: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-00.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
Matthew R. Meyer
Global Crossing
Denver Maddux
Nitrous.net
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Curtis Villamizar
Avici Systems
Amir Birjandi
MCI
IETF Internet Draft
Expires: April, 2004
October, 2003
<draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt>
MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft preemption
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are
Working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
1
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
Abstract
This draft documents MPLS TE Soft Preemption, a suite of protocol
modifications extending the concept of preemption with the goal of
reducing/eliminating traffic disruption of preempted TE LSPs.
Initially MPLS RSVP-TE was defined supporting only immediate LSP
displacement upon preemption. The utilization of a preemption pending
flag helps more gracefully mitigate the re-route process of preempted
LSPs. For the brief period soft preemption is activated, reservations
(though not necessarily traffic levels) are in effect over-provisioned
until the LSP can be re-routed. For this reason, the feature is
primarily but not exclusively interesting in packet oriented MPLS
networks with Diff-Serv and TE capabilities.
1. Terminology
CSPF - Constraint-based Shortest Path First.
Hard Preemption - Process whereby one LSP is intrusively displaced by a
better priority LSP.
LER - Label Edge Router
LSR - Label Switch Router
LSP - An MPLS Label Switched Path
Make Before Break - Technique used to non-intrusively alter the path of
an LSP. The ingress LER First signals, sharing the bandwidth with the
primary LSP (to avoid double booking), then switches forwarding over to
a new path. Finally the old path state is torn down.
Preemption Pending flag - This flag is set on an IPv4 or IPv6 RSVP Resv
RRO sub-object to signal to the TE LSP ingress LER that the TE LSP is
about to be preempted and must be re-signaled (in a non disruptive
fashion, with make before break) along another path. The flag can be
set for Path RRO as well.
Soft Preemption Desired Flag - This flag is set on an IPv4 or IPv6 Path
RRO sub-object to indicate to LSRs along the path that, should the LSP
need to be preempted, soft preemption should be used if supported.
TE LSP - Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
2
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
2. Motivations
Initially MPLS RSVP-TE was defined supporting only a method of TE LSP
preemption which immediately tore down TE LSPs, disregarding the
preempted in-transit traffic. This simple but abrupt process nearly
guarantees preempted traffic will be discarded, if only briefly, until
the RSVP Path Error message reaches and is processed by the ingress LER
and a new forwarding path can be established. In cases of actual
resource contention this might be helpful, however preemption is
triggered by mere reservation contention and reservations may not
reflect forwarding plane contention up to the moment. The result is
that traffic is often needlessly being discarded.
The intrusive or hard preemption may be a requirement to protect
traffic in a network without Diff-Serv, but in a Diff-Serv enabled
architecture one need not rely exclusively upon preemption to enforce a
preference for the most valued traffic since the marking and queuing
disciplines should already be aligned for those purposes. Moreover,
even in non Diff-Serv aware networks, depending on the TE LSP sizing
rules, reservation contention may not accurately reflect forwarding
plane congestion.
3. Introduction
In an MPLS RSVP-TE enabled network hard preemption provides no
mechanism to allow preempted TE LSPs to be handled in a make-before-
break fashion: the hard preemption scheme instead utilizes a very
intrusive method that can cause traffic disruption for a potentially
large amount of TE LSPs. The consequences of disruptive preemption
make periodic automated mechanisms like TE LSP dynamic resizing less
palatable when high network stability is sought. This draft proposes
the use of additional signaling and accounting mechanisms to alert the
ingress LER of the preemption that is pending and allow for temporary
over-provisioning while the preempted tunnel is re-routed in a non
disruptive fashion (make-before-break) by the ingress LER. During the
period that the tunnel is being re-routed, link capacity is over-
provisioned on links where soft preemption has occurred. Optionally the
egress LER may be signaled as well to more efficiently deal with any
simultaneous soft preemptions.
4. RSVP extensions
4.1. SESSION-ATTRIBUTES Flags
To explicitly signal the desire for a TE LSP to benefit from the soft
preemption mechanism (and so not to be hard preempted), the following
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
3
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
flag of the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object (for both the C-Type 1 and 7) is
defined:
Soft preemption desired: 0x40
4.2. RRO IPv4/IPv6 Sub-Object Flags
To report that a soft preemption is pending for an LSP, a flag is
defined in the IPv4/IPv6 sub-object carried in the RRO object message
defined in RFC3209. This flag is called the preemption pending (PPend)
flag. A compliant LSR MUST support the RRO object, as defined in RFC
3209.
RRO IPv4 and IPv6 sub-object address
These two sub-objects currently have the following flags defined in RFC
3209 and [FAST-REROUTE]:
Local protection available: 0x01
Indicates that the link downstream of this node is protected
via a local repair mechanism, which can be either one-to-one or
facility backup.
Local protection in use: 0x02
Indicates that a local repair mechanism is in use to maintain
this tunnel (usually in the face of an outage of the link it
was previously routed over, or an outage of the neighboring
node).
Bandwidth protection: 0x04
The PLR will set this when the protected LSP has a backup path
which is guaranteed to provide the desired bandwidth specified
in the FAST_REROUTE object or the bandwidth of the protected
LSP, if no FAST_REROUTE object was included. The PLR may set
this whenever the desired bandwidth is guaranteed; the PLR MUST
set this flag when the desired bandwidth is guaranteed and the
"bandwidth protection desired" flag was set in the
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. If the requested bandwidth is not
guaranteed, the PLR MUST NOT set this flag.
Node protection: 0x08
The PLR will set this when the protected LSP has a backup path
which provides protection against a failure of the next LSR
along the protected LSP. The PLR may set this whenever node
protection is provided by the protected LSP's backup path; the
PLR MUST set this flag when the node protection is provided and
the "node protection desired" flag was set in the
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. If node protection is not provided,
the PLR MUST NOT set this flag. Thus, if a PLR could only setup
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
4
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
a link-protection backup path, the "Local protection available"
bit will be set but the "Node protection" bit will
be cleared.
Soft preemption makes use of the Preemption pending flag defined here:
Preemption pending: 0x10
The preempting node sets this flag if a pending preemption is
in progress for the TE LSP. This indicates to the ingress LER
of this LSP that it SHOULD be re-routed.
4.3. Use of the RRO IPv4/IPv6 Sub-Object in Path message
An LSR MAY use the Preemption pending flag in the IPv4/IPv6 RRO sub-
object carried in a PATH RRO message to simultaneously alert downstream
LSRs that the LSP was soft preempted upstream. This information could
be used by the downstream LSR to bias future soft preemption candidates
toward LSPs already soft preempted elsewhere in their path.
5. Mode of operation
R0-----1G--R1--155--R2 LSP1: LSP2:
| \ |
| \ 155 R0-->R1 R1<--R2
| \ | \ |
155 1G R3 V V
| \ | R5 R4
| \ 155
| \ |
R4------1G--R5
Fig 1.
In the network depicted above in figure 1, consider the following
conditions:
-Reservable BW on R0-R1, R1-R5 and R4-R5 is 1Gb/sec
-Reservable BW on R1-R2, R1-R4, R2-R3, R3-R5 is 155 Mb/sec.
Bandwidths and costs are identical in both directions
-Each circuit has an IGP metric of 10 and IGP metric is used by CSPF
-Two TE tunnels are defined:
-LSP1: 155 Mb, setup/hold priority 0 tunnel path R0-R1-R5.
-LSP2: 155 Mb, setup/hold priority 7 tunnel path R2-R1-R4.
Both TE LSPs are signaled with the Soft Preemption bit of their
SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object set.
-Circuit R1-R5 fails.
-Soft Preemption is functional.
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
5
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
When the circuit R1-R5 fails, R1 detects the failure and sends an
updated IGP LSA/LSP and Path Error message to all the ingress LERs
having a TE LSP traversing the failed link (R0 in the example above).
Either form of notification may arrive at the ingress LERs first. Upon
receiving the link failure notification, ingress LER R0 triggers a TE
LSP re-route of LSP1, and re-signals LSP1 along shortest path available
satisfying the TE LSP constraints: R0-R1-R4-R5 path. The Resv messages
for LSP1 travel in the upstream direction (from the destination to the
ingress LER -- R5 to R0 in this example). LSP2 is soft preempted at R1
as it has a numerically lower priority value and both bandwidth
reservations cannot be satisfied on the R1-R4 link.
Instead of sending a path tear for LSP2 upon preemption as with hard
preemption (which would result in an immediate traffic disruption for
LSP2), R1s local BW accounting for LSP2 is zeroed and a preemption
pending flagged Resv RRO for LSP2 is issued upstream toward the ingress
LER, R2. Optionally, R1 MAY simultaneously send a soft preemption
flagged Path RRO notifying downstream LSRs of LSP2s soft preemption.
If more than one soft preempted LSP has the same ingress LER (egress
LER), these soft preemption Resv (Path) messages MAY be bundled
together (see RFC2961).
The preempting node MUST immediately send a Resv message with the
Preemption pending RRO flag set for each soft preempted TE LSP. The
node MAY use the occurrence of soft preemption to trigger an immediate
IGP update or influence the scheduling of an IGP update.
Should a refresh event for LSP2 arrive before LSP2 is re-routed, soft
preempting nodes such as R1 MUST continue to refresh the LSP. Resv
messages with the RRO Preemption pending flag set SHOULD be sent in
reliable mode (RFC 2961).
Upon reception of the Resv with the Preemption pending flag set, the
ingress LER (of LSP2 in this case) MAY update the working copy of the
TE-DB before running CSPF for the new LSP. In the case that Diff-Serv
[DIFF-MPLS] & TE [RSVP-TE]are deployed (as opposed to Diff-Serv-aware
TE [DS-TE]), receiving preemption pending may imply to a ingress LER
that the available bandwidth for the affected priority level and
greater has been exhausted for the indicated node interface. An
ingress LER MAY choose to reduce or zero available BW for the implied
priority range until more accurate information is available (i.e. a new
IGP TE update is received).
In the case that reservation availability is restored at the point of
preemption (R1) the point of preemption MAY issue a Resv message with
the Preemption pending flag unset to signal restoration to the
ingress LER. This implies that a ingress LER might have delayed or
been unsuccessful in re-signaling.
After the ingress LER has successfully established a new LSP, the old
path MUST be torn down.
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
6
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
As a result of 'soft preemption', no traffic will be needlessly black-
holed due to mere reservation contention. If loss is to occur, it will
be due only to an actual traffic congestion scenario and
according to the operators Diff-Serv (if Diff-Serv is deployed) and
queuing scheme.
6. Selection of the preempted TE LSP at a preempting mid-point
When a numerically lower priority TE LSP is signaled that requires the
preemption of a set of numerically higher priority LSPs, the node where
preemption is to occur has to make a decision on the set of TE LSP,
candidates for preemption. This decision is a local decision and
various algorithms can be used, depending on the objective. See
[PREEMPT-EXP].
As already mentioned, soft preemption causes a temporary link over-
provisioning condition while the soft preempted TE LSPs are re-routed
by their respective ingress LERs. In order to reduce this over-
provisioning exposure, a preempting LSR MAY limit the number of soft
preempt-able TE LSPs to the subset of TE LSP that have explicitly
requested soft preemption via signaling, setting their Soft Preemption
desired bit in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE of their RSVP Path messages. This
way, the preempting LSR could apply hard preemption to the remaining TE
LSPs that have not explicitly requested soft preemption, sending a Path
Error message to their ingress LER and immediately removing the
corresponding local states. This would help reducing the temporarily
elevated over-provisioning ratio on the links where soft preemption
occurs.
Optionally, a midpoint LSR upstream or downstream from a soft
preempting node MAY choose to cache the LSPs soft preempted state. In
the event a local preemption is needed, the relevant priority level
LSPs from the cache are soft preempted first, followed by the normal
soft and hard preemption selection process for the given priority.
7. Interoperability
Backward compatibility should be assured as long as the implementation
followed the recommendation set forth in RFC 3209. "The presence of an
unrecognized subobject which is not encountered in a node's ERO
processing SHOULD be ignored. It is passed forward along with the rest
of the remaining ERO stack." An LSR without soft preemption
capabilities but that followed the aforementioned recommendation will
simply ignore the RRO Preemption Pending flag and treat the Resv
message as a regular Resv refresh message. As a consequence, the soft
preempted TE LSP will not be re-routed with make before break by the
ingress LER.
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
7
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
To guard against a situation where bandwidth over-provisioning will
last forever, a local timer (soft preemption expiration timer) MUST be
started on the preemption node, upon soft preemption. When this timer
expires, the soft preempted TE LSP will be torn down and the preempting
node SHOULD send a Path Error. This timer MAY be configurable.
Optionally, an implementation MAY choose to Hard preempt TE LSP for
which the Soft preemption desired bit has not been set. The current
hard preemption scheme can be emulated with a soft preemption
expiration timer set to zero.
8. Management
Both the point of preemption and the ingress LER SHOULD provide some
form of accounting internally and to the user with regard to which TE
LSPs and how much capacity is over-provisioned due to soft preemption.
9. Security Considerations
The practice described in this draft does not raise specific security
issues beyond those of existing TE.
10. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Carol Iturralde, Dave Cooper for their
valuable comments.
11. Intellectual Property
The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of any
proprietary or intellectual property rights in the contribution that
are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The
contributor does not represent that he personally knows of all
potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights
owned or claimed by the organization he represents (if any) or third
parties.
References
[TE-REQ] Awduche et al, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS,
RFC2702, September 1999.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF, draft-
katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt, October 2002.
[ISIS-TE] Smit, Li, IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering, draft-
ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt, December 2002.
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
8
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
[RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC3209, December 2001.
[DS-TE] Le Faucheur et al, "Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC3564, July 2003.
[DS-TE-PROT] Le Faucheur et al, "Protocol extensions for support of
Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-
proto-05.txt, September 2003
[FAST-REROUTE] Pan, P. et al., "Fast Reroute Extentions to
RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-
fastreroute-03.txt
, December, 2003
[REFRESH-REDUCTION] Berger et al, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001.
[PREEMPT-EXP]DE Oliviera, JP. Vasseur, L.Chen and C. Scoglio " LSP Preemption Polcies for MPLS Traffic Engineering", daft-deoliviera-diff-te-preemption-02.txt, October 2003
[DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P. and J. Heinanen, "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, May
2002.
Matthew R. Meyer
Global Crossing
3133 Indian Valley Tr.
Howell, MI 48855
USA
email: mrm@gblx.net
Denver Maddux
Nitrous.net
1020 SW 35th St
Corvallis, OR 97333
USA
email: denver@nitrous.net
Jean Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Curtis Villamizar
Avici Systems Inc.
USA
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
9
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt October, 2003
Email: curtis@avici.com
Amir Birjandi
MCI
22001 louden county pky
Ashburn, VA 20147
USA
Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi
10
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 06:49:24 |