Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk
RTGWG M. Shand
Internet-Draft S. Bryant
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems
Expires: April 23, 2010 October 20, 2009
A Framework for Loop-free Convergence
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-07
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
A micro-loop is a packet forwarding loop which may occur transiently
among two or more routers in a hop by hop packet forwarding paradigm.
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
This framework provides a summary of the causes and consequences of
micro-loops and enables the reader to form a judgement on whether
micro-looping is an issue that needs to be addressed in specific
networks. It also provides a survey of the currently proposed
mechanisms that may be used to prevent or to suppress the formation
of micro-loops when an IP or MPLS network undergoes topology change
due to failure, repair or management action. When sufficiently fast
convergence is not available and the topology is susceptible to
micro-loops, use of one or more of these mechanisms may be desirable.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Nature of Micro-loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Micro-loop Control Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Loop mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Fast-convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. PLSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Micro-loop Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Incremental Cost Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Nearside Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Farside Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Distributed Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5. Packet Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.6. MPLS New Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.7. Ordered FIB Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.8. Synchronised FIB Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Using PLSN In Conjunction With Other Methods . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Loop Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Compatibility Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Comparison of Loop-free Convergence Methods . . . . . . . . . 20
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
1. Introduction
When there is a change to the network topology (due to the failure or
restoration of a link or router, or as a result of management action)
the routers need to converge on a common view of the new topology and
the paths to be used for forwarding traffic to each destination.
During this process, referred to as a routing transition, packet
delivery between certain source/destination pairs may be disrupted.
This occurs due to the time it takes for the topology change to be
propagated around the network together with the time it takes each
individual router to determine and then update the forwarding
information base (FIB) for the affected destinations. During this
transition, packets may be lost due to the continuing attempts to use
the failed component, and due to forwarding loops. Forwarding loops
arise due to the inconsistent FIBs that occur as a result of the
difference in time taken by routers to execute the transition
process. This is a problem that may occur in both IP networks and
MPLS networks that use label distribution protocol (LDP) RFC5036
[RFC5036] as the label switched path (LSP) signaling protocol.
The service failures caused by routing transitions are largely hidden
by higher-level protocols that retransmit the lost data. However new
Internet services could emerge which are more sensitive to the packet
disruption that occurs during a transition. To make the transition
transparent to their users, these services would require a short
routing transition. Ideally, routing transitions would be completed
in zero time with no packet loss.
Regardless of how optimally the mechanisms involved have been
designed and implemented, it is inevitable that a routing transition
will take some minimum interval that is greater than zero. This has
led to the development of a traffic engineering (TE) fast-reroute
mechanism for MPLS [RFC4090]. Alternative mechanisms that might be
deployed in an MPLS network and mechanisms that may be used in an IP
network are work in progress in the IETF
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework]. The repair mechanism may however
be disrupted by the formation of micro-loops during the period
between the time when the failure is announced, and the time when all
FIBs have been updated to reflect the new topology.
One method of mitigating the effects of micro-loops is to ensure that
the network reconverges in a sufficiently short time that these
effects are inconsequential. Another method is to design the network
topology to minimise or even eliminate the possibility of micro-
loops.
The propensity to form micro-loops is highly topology dependent and
algorithms are available to identify which links in a network are
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
subject to micro-looping. In topologies which are critically
susceptible to the formation of micro-loops, there is little point in
introducing new mechanisms to provide fast re-route, without also
deploying mechanisms that prevent the disruptive effects of micro-
loops. Unless micro-loop prevention is used in these topologies,
packets may not reach the repair and micro-looping packets may cause
congestion resulting in further packet loss.
The disruptive effect of micro-loops is not confined to periods when
there is a component failure. Micro-loops can, for example, form
when a component is put back into service following repair. Micro-
loops can also form as a result of a network maintenance action such
as adding a new network component, removing a network component or
modifying a link cost.
This framework provides a summary of the causes and consequences of
micro-loops and enables the reader to form a judgement on whether
micro-looping is an issue that needs to be addressed in specific
networks. It also provides a survey of the currently proposed micro-
loop mitigation mechanisms. When sufficiently fast convergence is
not available and the topology is susceptible to micro-loops, use of
one or more of these mechanisms may be desirable.
2. The Nature of Micro-loops
A micro-loop is a packet forwarding loop which may occur transiently
among two or more routers in a hop by hop packet forwarding paradigm.
Micro-loops may form during the periods when a network is re-
converging following ANY topology change, and are caused by
inconsistent FIBs in the routers. During the transition, micro-loops
may occur over a single link between a pair of routers that
temporarily use each other as the next hop for a prefix. Micro-loops
may also form when each router in a cycle of three or more routers
has the next router in the cycle as a next hop for a given prefix.
Cyclic loops may occur if one or more of the following conditions are
met:-
1. Asymmetric link costs.
2. The existence of an equal cost path between a pair of routers
which make different decisions regarding which path to use for
forwarding to a particular destination. Note that even routers
which do not implement equal cost multi-path (ECMP) forwarding
must make a choice between the available equal cost paths and
unless they make the same choice the condition for cyclic loops
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
will be fulfilled.
3. Topology changes affecting multiple links, including single node
and line card failures.
Micro-loops have two undesirable side-effects; congestion and repair
starvation.
o A looping packet consumes bandwidth until it either escapes as a
result of the re-synchronization of the FIBs, or its TTL expires.
This transiently increases the traffic over a link by as much as
128 times, and may cause the link to become congested. This
congestion reduces the bandwidth available to other traffic (which
is not otherwise affected by the topology change). As a result
the "innocent" traffic using the link experiences increased
latency, and is liable to congestive packet loss.
o In cases where the link or node failure has been protected by a
fast re-route repair, an inconsistency in the FIBs may prevent
some traffic from reaching the failure and hence being repaired.
The repair may thus become starved of traffic and thereby rendered
ineffective.
Although micro-loops are usually considered in the context of a
failure, similar problems of congestive packet loss and starvation
may also occur if the topology change is the result of management
action. For example, consider the case where a link is to be taken
out of service by management action. The link can be retained in
service throughout the transition, thus avoiding the need for any
repair. However, if micro-loops form, they may cause congestion loss
and may also prevent traffic from reaching the link.
Unless otherwise controlled, micro-loops may form in any part of the
network that forwards (or in the case of a new link, will forward)
packets over a path that includes the affected topology change. The
time taken to propagate the topology change through the network, and
the non-uniform time taken by each router to calculate the new
shortest path tree (SPT) and update its FIB contribute to the
duration of the packet disruption caused by the micro-loops. In some
cases a packet may be subject to disruption from micro-loops which
occur sequentially at links along the path, thus further extending
the period of disruption beyond that required to resolve a single
loop.
3. Applicability
Loop free convergence techniques are applicable to any situation in
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
which micro-loops may form. For example the convergence of a network
following:
1. Component failure.
2. Component repair.
3. Management withdrawal of a component.
4. Management insertion or a component.
5. Management change of link cost (either positive or negative).
6. External cost change, for example change of external gateway as a
result of a BGP change.
7. A Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) failure.
In each case, a component may be a link, a set of links or an entire
router. Throughout this document we use the term SRLG when
describing the procedure to be followed when multiple failures have
occurred whether or not they are members of an explicit SRLG. In the
case of multiple independent failures, the loop prevention method
described for SRLG may be used provided it is known that all of these
failures have been repaired.
Loop free convergence techniques are applicable to both IP networks
and MPLS enabled networks that use LDP, including LDP networks that
use the single-hop tunnel fast-reroute mechanism.
An assessment of whether loop free convergence techniques are
required should take into account whether or not the interior gateway
protocol (IGP) convergence is sufficiently fast that any micro-loops
are of such short duration that they are not disruptive, and whether
or not the topology is such that micro-loops are likely to form.
4. Micro-loop Control Strategies
Micro-loop control strategies fall into four basic classes:
1. Micro-loop mitigation
2. Micro-loop prevention
3. Micro-loop suppression
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
4. Network design to minimise micro-loops
A micro-loop mitigation scheme works by re-converging the network in
such a way that it reduces, but does not eliminate, the formation of
micro-loops. Such schemes cannot guarantee the productive forwarding
of packets during the transition.
A micro-loop prevention mechanism controls the re-convergence of the
network in such a way that no micro-loops form. Such a micro-loop
prevention mechanism allows the continued use of any fast repair
method until the network has converged on its new topology, and
prevents the collateral damage that occurs to other traffic for the
duration of each micro-loop.
A micro-loop suppression mechanism attempts to eliminate the
collateral damage caused by micro-loops to other traffic. This may
be achieved by, for example, using a packet monitoring method that
detects that a packet is looping and drops it. Such schemes make no
attempt to productively forward the packet throughout the network
transition.
Highly meshed topologies are less susceptible to micro-loops, thus
networks may be designed to minimise the occurrence of micro-loops by
appropriate link placement and metric settings. However, this
approach may conflict with other design requirements such as cost and
traffic planning and may not accurately track the evolution of the
network, or temporary changes due to outages.
Note that all known micro-loop prevention mechanisms and most micro-
loop mitigation mechanisms extend the duration of the re-convergence
process. When the failed component is protected by a fast re-route
repair this implies that the converging network requires the repair
to remain in place for longer than would otherwise be the case. The
extended convergence time means any traffic which is not repaired by
an imperfect repair experiences a significantly longer outage than it
would experience with conventional convergence.
When a component is returned to service, or when a network management
action has taken place, this additional delay does not cause traffic
disruption, because there is no repair involved. However the
extended delay is undesirable, because it increases the time that the
network takes to be ready for another failure, and hence leaves it
vulnerable to multiple failures.
5. Loop mitigation
There are two approaches to loop mitigation.
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
o Fast-convergence
o A purpose designed loop mitigation mechanism
5.1. Fast-convergence
The duration of micro-loops is dependent on the speed of convergence.
Improving the speed of convergence may therefore be seen as a loop
mitigation technique.
5.2. PLSN
The only known purpose designed loop mitigation approach is the Path
Locking with Safe-Neighbors (PLSN) method described in PLSN
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis]. In this method, a micro-loop
free next-hop safety condition is defined as follows:
In a symmetric cost network, it is safe for router X to change to the
use of neighbor Y as its next-hop for a specific destination if the
path through Y to that destination satisfies both of the following
criteria:
1. X considers Y as its loop-free neighbor based on the topology
before the change AND
2. X considers Y as its downstream neighbor based on the topology
after the change.
In an asymmetric cost network, a stricter safety condition is needed,
and the criterion is that:
X considers Y as its downstream neighbor based on the topology
both before and after the change.
Based on these criteria, destinations are classified by each router
into three classes:
o Type A destinations: Destinations unaffected by the change (type
A1) and also destinations whose next hop after the change
satisfies the safety criteria (type A2).
o Type B destinations: Destinations that cannot be sent via the new
primary next-hop because the safety criteria are not satisfied,
but which can be sent via another next-hop that does satisfy the
safety criteria.
o Type C destinations: All other destinations.
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
Following a topology change, Type A destinations are immediately
changed to go via the new topology. Type B destinations are
immediately changed to go via the next hop that satisfies the safety
criteria, even though this is not the shortest path. Type B
destinations continue to go via this path until all routers have
changed their Type C destinations over to the new next hop. Routers
must not change their Type C destinations until all routers have
changed their Type A2 and Type B destinations to the new or
intermediate (safe) next hop.
Simulations indicate that this approach produces a significant
reduction in the number of links that are subject to micro-looping.
However unlike all of the micro-loop prevention methods it is only a
partial solution. In particular, micro-loops may form on any link
joining a pair of type C routers.
Because routers delay updating their Type C destination FIB entries,
they will continue to route towards the failure during the time when
the routers are changing their Type A and B destinations, and hence
will continue to productively forward packets provided that viable
repair paths exist.
A backwards compatibility issue arises with PLSN. If a router is not
capable of micro-loop control, it will not correctly delay its FIB
update. If all such routers had only type A destinations this loop
mitigation mechanism would work as it was designed. Alternatively,
if all such incapable routers had only type C destinations, the
"loop-prevention" announcement mechanism used to trigger the tunnel
based schemes (see sections 5.2 to 5.4) could be used to cause the
Type A and Type B destinations to be changed, with the incapable
routers and routers having type C destinations delaying until they
received the "real" announcement. Unfortunately, these two
approaches are mutually incompatible.
Note that simulations indicate that in most topologies treating type
B destinations as type C results in only a small degradation in loop
prevention. Also note that simulation results indicate that in
production networks where some, but not all, links have asymmetric
costs, using the stricter asymmetric cost criterion actually reduces
the number of loop free destinations, because fewer destinations can
be classified as type A or B.
This mechanism operates identically for
o events that degrade the topology (e.g. link failure),
o events that improve the topology (e.g. link restoration), and
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
o shared risk link group (SRLG) failure.
6. Micro-loop Prevention
Eight micro-loop prevention methods have been proposed:
1. Incremental cost advertisement
2. Nearside tunneling
3. Farside tunneling
4. Distributed tunnels
5. Packet marking
6. New MPLS labels
7. Ordered FIB update
8. Synchronized FIB update
6.1. Incremental Cost Advertisement
When a link fails, the cost of the link is normally changed from its
assigned metric to "infinity" in one step. However, it can be proved
[OPT] that no micro-loops will form if the link cost is increased in
suitable increments, and the network is allowed to stabilize before
the next cost increment is advertised. Once the link cost has been
increased to a value greater than that of the lowest alternative cost
around the link, the link may be disabled without causing a micro-
loop.
The criterion for a link cost change to be safe is that any link
which is subjected to a cost change of x can only cause loops in a
part of the network that has a cyclic cost less than or equal to x.
Because there may exist links which have a cost of one in each
direction, resulting in a cyclic cost of two, this can result in the
link cost having to be raised in increments of one. However the
increment can be larger where the minimum cost permits. Recent work
[OPT] has shown that there are a number of optimizations which can be
applied to the problem in order to determine the exact set of cost
values required and hence minimize the number of increments.
It will be appreciated that when a link is returned to service, its
cost is reduced in small steps from "infinity" to its final cost,
thereby providing similar micro-loop prevention during a "good-news"
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
event. Note that the link cost may be decreased from "infinity" to
any value greater than that of the lowest alternative cost around the
link in one step without causing a micro-loop.
When the failure is an SRLG the link cost increments must be
coordinated across all failing members of the SRLG. This may be
achieved by completing the transition of one link before starting the
next, or by interleaving the changes.
The incremental cost change approach has the advantage over all other
currently known loop prevention scheme that it requires no change to
the routing protocol. It will work in any network because it does
not require any co-operation from the other routers in the network.
Where the micro-loop prevention mechanism is being used to support a
planned reconfiguration of the network, the extended total
reconvergence time resulting from the multiple increments is of
limited consequence, particularly where the number of increments have
been optimized. This, together with the ability to implement this
technique in isolation, makes this method a good candidate for use
with such management initiated changes.
Where the micro-loop prevention mechanism is being used to support
failure recovery, the number of increments required, and hence the
time taken to fully converge, is significant even for small numbers
of increments. This is because, for the duration of the transition,
some parts of the network continue to use the old forwarding path,
and hence use any repair mechanism for an extended period. In the
case of a failure that cannot be fully repaired, some destinations
may therefore become unreachable for an extended period. In addition
the network may be vulnerable to a second failure for the duration of
the controlled re-convergence.
Where large metrics are used and no optimization (such as that
described above) is performed, the incremental cost method can be
extremely slow. However in cases where the per link metric is small,
either because small values have been assigned by the network
designers, or because of restrictions implicit in the routing
protocol (e.g. RIP restricts the metric, and BGP using the AS path
length frequently uses an effective metric of one, or a very small
integer for each inter AS hop), the number of required increments can
be acceptably small even without optimizations.
6.2. Nearside Tunneling
This mechanism works by creating an overlay network using tunnels
whose path is not affected by the topology change and carrying the
traffic affected by the change in that new network. When all the
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
traffic is in the new, tunnel based, network, the real network is
allowed to converge on the new topology. Because all the traffic
that would be affected by the change is carried in the overlay
network no micro-loops form.
When a failure is detected (or a link is withdrawn from service), the
router adjacent to the failure issues a new "loop-prevention" routing
message announcing the topology change. This message is propagated
through the network by all routers, but is only understood by routers
capable of using one of the tunnel based micro-loop prevention
mechanisms.
Each of the micro-loop preventing routers builds a tunnel to the
closest router adjacent to the failure. They then determine which of
their traffic would transit the failure and place that traffic in the
tunnel. When all of these tunnels are in place (determined, for
example, by waiting a suitable interval) the failure is announced as
normal. Because these tunnels will be unaffected by the transition,
and because the routers protecting the link will continue the repair
(or forward across the link being withdrawn), no traffic will be
disrupted by the failure. When the network has converged these
tunnels are withdrawn, allowing traffic to be forwarded along its new
"natural" path. The order of tunnel insertion and withdrawal is not
important, provided that the tunnels are all in place before the
normal announcement is issued, and provided that the repair remains
in place until normal convergence has completed.
This method completes in bounded time, and is generally much faster
than the incremental cost method. Depending on the exact design, it
completes in two or three flood-SPF-FIB update cycles.
At the time at which the failure is announced as normal, micro-loops
may form within isolated islands of non-micro-loop preventing
routers. However, only traffic entering the network via such routers
can micro-loop. All traffic entering the network via a micro-loop
preventing router will be tunneled correctly to the nearest repairing
router, including, if necessary being tunneled via a non-micro-loop
preventing router, and will not micro-loop.
Where there is no requirement to prevent the formation of micro-loops
involving non-micro-loop preventing routers, a single, "normal"
announcement may be made, and a local timer used to determine the
time at which transition from tunneled forwarding to normal
forwarding over the new topology may commence.
This technique has the disadvantage that it requires traffic to be
tunneled during the transition. This is an issue in IP networks
because not all router designs are capable of high performance IP
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
tunneling. It is also an issue in MPLS networks because the
encapsulating router has to know the label set that the decapsulating
router is distributing.
A further disadvantage of this method is that it requires co-
operation from all the routers within the routing domain to fully
protect the network against micro-loops.
When a new link is added, the mechanism is run in "reverse". When
the loop-prevention announcement is heard, routers determine which
traffic they will send over the new link, and tunnel that traffic to
the router on the near side of that link. This path will not be
affected by the presence of the new link. When the "normal"
announcement is heard, they then update their FIB to send the traffic
normally according to the new topology. Any traffic encountering a
router that has not yet updated its FIB will be tunneled to the near
side of the link, and will therefore not loop.
When a management change to the topology is required, again exactly
the same mechanism protects against micro-looping of packets by the
micro-loop preventing routers.
When the failure is an SRLG, the required strategy is to classify
traffic according the furthest failing member of the SRLG that it
will traverse on its way to the destination, and to tunnel that
traffic to the repairing router for that SRLG member. This will
require multiple tunnel destinations, in the limiting case, one per
SRLG member.
6.3. Farside Tunnels
Farside tunneling loop prevention requires the loop preventing
routers to place all of the traffic that would traverse the failure
in one or more tunnels terminating at the router (or in the case of
node failure routers) at the far side of the failure. The properties
of this method are a more uniform distribution of repair traffic than
is a achieved using the nearside tunnel method, and in the case of
node failure, a reduction in the decapsulation load on any single
router.
Unlike the nearside tunnel method (which uses normal routing to the
repairing router), this method requires the use of a repair path to
the farside router. This may be provided by the not-via
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses] mechanism, in which case no
further computation is needed.
The mode of operation is otherwise identical to the nearside
tunneling loop prevention method (Section 6.2).
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
6.4. Distributed Tunnels
In the distributed tunnels loop prevention method, each router
calculates its own repair and forwards traffic affected by the
failure using that repair. Unlike the FRR case, the actual failure
is known at the time of the calculation. The objective of the loop
preventing routers is to get the packets that would have gone via the
failure into Q-space [I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels] using routers that
are in P-space. Because packets are decapsulated on entry to
Q-space, rather than being forced to go to the farside of the
failure, more optimum routing may be achieved. This method is
subject to the same reachability constraints described in
[I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels].
The mode of operation is otherwise identical to the nearside
tunneling loop prevention method (Section 6.2).
An alternative distributed tunnel mechanism is for all routers to
tunnel to the not-via address [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses]
associated with the failure.
6.5. Packet Marking
If packets could be marked in some way, this information could be
used to assign them to one of:
o the new topology,
o the old topology or
o a transition topology.
They would then be correctly forwarded during the transition. This
mechanism works identically for both "bad-news" and "good-news"
events. It also works identically for SRLG failure. There are three
problems with this solution:
o A packet marking bit may not be available, for example a network
supporting both the differentiated services architecture [RFC2475]
and explicit congestion notification [RFC3168] uses all eight bits
of the IPv4 Type of Service field.
o The mechanism would introduce a non-standard forwarding procedure.
o Packet marking using either the old or the new topology would
double the size of the FIB, however some optimizations may be
possible
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
6.6. MPLS New Labels
In an MPLS network that is using RFC5036 [RFC5036] for label
distribution, loop free convergence can be achieved through the use
of new labels when the path that a prefix will take through the
network changes.
As described in Section 6.2, the repairing routers issue a loop-
prevention announcement to start the loop free convergence process.
All loop preventing routers calculate the new topology and determine
whether their FIB needs to be changed. If there is no change in the
FIB they take no part in the following process.
The routers that need to make a change to their FIB consider each
change and check the new next hop to determine whether it will use a
path in the OLD topology which reaches the destination without
traversing the failure (i.e. the next hop is in P-space with respect
to the failure [I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels]). If so the FIB entry can
be immediately updated. For all of the remaining FIB entries, the
router issues a new label to each of its neighbors. This new label
is used to lock the path during the transition in a similar manner to
the previously described loop-free convergence with tunnels method
(Section 6.2). Routers receiving a new label install it in their
FIB, for MPLS label translation, but do not yet remove the old label
and do not yet use this new label to forward IP packets. i.e. they
prepare to forward using the new label on the new path, but do not
use it yet. Any packets received continue to be forwarded the old
way, using the old labels, towards the repair.
At some time after the loop-prevention announcement, a normal routing
announcement of the failure is issued. This announcement must not be
issued until such time as all routers have carried out all of their
loop-prevention announcement triggered activities. On receipt of the
normal announcement all routers that were delaying convergence move
to their new path for both the new and the old labels. This involves
changing the IP address entries to use the new labels, AND changing
the old labels to forward using the new labels.
Because the new label path was installed during the loop-prevention
phase, packets reach their destinations as follows:
o If they do not go via any router using a new label they go via the
repairing router and the repair.
o If they meet any router that is using the new labels they get
marked with the new labels and reach their destination using the
new path, back-tracking if necessary.
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
When all routers have changed to the new path the network is
converged. At some later time, when it can be assumed that all
routers have moved to using the new path, the FIB can be cleaned up
to remove the, now redundant, old labels.
As with other method methods the new labels may be modified to
provide loop prevention for "good news". There are also a number of
optimizations of this method.
6.7. Ordered FIB Update
The Ordered FIB loop prevention method is described in OFIB
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib]. Micro-loops occur following a failure
or a cost increase, when a router closer to the failed component
revises its routes to take account of the failure before a router
which is further away. By analyzing the reverse shortest path tree
(rSPT) over which traffic is directed to the failed component in the
old topology, it is possible to determine a strict ordering which
ensures that nodes closer to the root always process the failure
after any nodes further away, and hence micro-loops are prevented.
When the failure has been announced, each router waits a multiple of
the convergence timer [I-D.atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers]. The
multiple is determined by the node's position in the rSPT, and the
delay value is chosen to guarantee that a node can complete its
processing within this time. The convergence time may be reduced by
employing a signaling mechanism to notify the parent when all the
children have completed their processing, and hence when it is safe
for the parent to instantiate its new routes.
The property of this approach is therefore that it imposes a delay
which is bounded by the network diameter although in many cases it
will be much less.
When a link is returned to service the convergence process above is
reversed. A router first determines its distance (in hops) from the
new link in the NEW topology. Before updating its FIB, it then waits
a time equal to the value of that distance multiplied by the
convergence timer.
It will be seen that network management actions can similarly be
undertaken by treating a cost increase in a manner similar to a
failure and a cost decrease similar to a restoration.
The ordered FIB mechanism requires all nodes in the domain to operate
according to these procedures, and the presence of non co-operating
nodes can give rise to loops for any traffic which traverses them
(not just traffic which is originated through them). Without
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
additional mechanisms these loops could remain in place for a
significant time.
It should be noted that this method requires per router ordering, but
not per prefix ordering. A router must wait its turn to update its
FIB, but it should then update its entire FIB.
When an SRLG failure occurs a router must classify traffic into the
classes that pass over each member of the SRLG. Each router is then
independently assigned a ranking with respect to each SRLG member for
which they have a traffic class. These rankings may be different for
each traffic class. The prefixes of each class are then changed in
the FIB according to the ordering of their specific ranking. Again,
as for the single failure case, signaling may be used to speed up the
convergence process.
Note that the special SRLG case of a full or partial node failure,
can be dealt with without using per prefix ordering, by running a
single reverse SPF computation rooted at the failed node (or common
point of the subset of failing links in the partial case).
There are two classes of signaling optimization that can be applied
to the ordered FIB loop-prevention method:
o When the router makes NO change, it can signal immediately. This
significantly reduces the time taken by the network to process
long chains of routers that have no change to make to their FIB.
o When a router HAS changed, it can signal that it has completed.
This is more problematic since this may be difficult to determine,
particularly in a distributed architecture, and the optimization
obtained is the difference between the actual time taken to make
the FIB change and the worst case timer value. This saving could
be of the order of one second per hop.
There is another method of executing ordered FIB which is based on
pure signaling [SIG]. Methods that use signaling as an optimization
are safe because eventually they fall back on the established IGP
mechanisms which ensure that networks converge under conditions of
packet loss. However a mechanism that relies on signaling in order
to converge requires a reliable signaling mechanism which must be
proven to recover from any failure circumstance.
6.8. Synchronised FIB Update
Micro-loops form because of the asynchronous nature of the FIB update
process during a network transition. In many router architectures it
is the time taken to update the FIB itself that is the dominant term.
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
One approach would be to have two FIBs and, in a synchronized action
throughout the network, to switch from the old to the new. One way
to achieve this synchronized change would be to signal or otherwise
determine the wall clock time of the change, and then execute the
change at that time, using NTP [RFC1305] to synchronize the wall
clocks in the routers.
This approach has a number of major issues. Firstly two complete
FIBs are needed which may create a scaling issue and secondly a
suitable network wide synchronization method is needed. However,
neither of these are insurmountable problems.
Since the FIB change synchronization will not be perfect there may be
some interval during which micro-loops form. Whether this scheme is
classified as a micro-loop prevention mechanism or a micro-loop
mitigation mechanism within this taxonomy is therefore dependent on
the degree of synchronization achieved.
This mechanism works identically for both "bad-news" and "good-news"
events. It also works identically for SRLG failure. Further
consideration needs to be given to interoperating with routers that
do not support this mechanism. Without a suitable interoperating
mechanism, loops may form for the duration of the synchronization
delay.
7. Using PLSN In Conjunction With Other Methods
All of the tunnel methods and packet marking can be combined with
PLSN (Section 5.2)[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis] to reduce the
traffic that needs to be protected by the advanced method.
Specifically all traffic could use PLSN except traffic between a pair
of routers both of which consider the destination to be type C. The
type C to type C traffic would be protected from micro-looping
through the use of a loop prevention method.
However, determining whether the new next hop router considers a
destination to be type C may be computationally intensive. An
alternative approach would be to use a loop prevention method for all
local type C destinations. This would not require any additional
computation, but would require the additional loop prevention method
to be used in cases which would not have generated loops (i.e. when
the new next-hop router considered this to be a type A or B
destination).
The amount of traffic that would use PLSN is highly dependent on the
network topology and the specific change, but would be expected to be
in the region %70 to %90 in typical networks.
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
However, PLSN cannot be combined safely with Ordered FIB. Consider
the network fragment shown below:
R
/|\
/ | \
1/ 2| \3
/ | \ cost S->T = 10
Y-----X----S----T cost T->S = 1
| 1 2 |
|1 |
D---------------+
20
On failure of link XY, according to PLSN, S will regard R as a safe
neighbor for traffic to D. However the ordered FIB rank of both R and
T will be zero and hence these can change their FIBs during the same
time interval. If R changes before T, then a loop will form around
R, T and S. This can be prevented by using a stronger safety
condition than PLSN currently specifies, at the cost of introducing
more type C routers, and hence reducing the PLSN coverage.
8. Loop Suppression
A micro-loop suppression mechanism recognizes that a packet is
looping and drops it. One such approach would be for a router to
recognize, by some means, that it had seen the same packet before.
It is difficult to see how sufficiently reliable discrimination could
be achieved without some form of per-router signature such as route
recording. A packet recognizing approach therefore seems infeasible.
An alternative approach would be to recognize that a packet was
looping by recognizing that it was being sent back to the place that
it had just come from. This would work for the types of loop that
form in symmetric cost networks, but would not suppress the cyclic
loops that form in asymmetric networks, and as a result of multiple
failures.
This mechanism operates identically for both "bad-news" events,
"good-news" events and SRLG failure.
9. Compatibility Issues
Deployment of any micro-loop control mechanism is a major change to a
network. Full consideration must be given to interoperation between
routers that are capable of micro-loop control, and those that are
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
not. Additionally there may be a desire to limit the complexity of
micro-loop control by choosing a method based purely on its
simplicity. Any such decision must take into account that if a more
capable scheme is needed in the future, its deployment might be
complicated by interaction with the scheme previously deployed.
10. Comparison of Loop-free Convergence Methods
PLSN [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis] is an efficient mechanism to
prevent the formation of micro-loops, but is only a partial solution.
It is a useful adjunct to some of the complete solutions, but may
need modification.
Incremental cost advertisement in its simplest form is impractical as
a general solution because it takes too long to complete. Optimized
Incremental cost advertisement, however, completes in much less time
and requires no assistance from other routers in the network. It is
therefore, useful for network reconfiguration operations.
Packet Marking is probably impractical because of the need to find
the marking bit and to change the forwarding behavior.
Of the remaining methods, distributed tunnels is significantly more
complex than nearside or farside tunnels, and should only be
considered if there is a requirement to distribute the tunnel
decapsulation load.
Synchronised FIBs is a fast method, but has the issue that a suitable
synchronization mechanism needs to be defined. One method would be
to use NTP [RFC1305], however the coupling of routing convergence to
a protocol that uses the network may be a problem. During the
transition there will be some micro-looping for a short interval
because it is not possible to achieve complete synchronization of the
FIB changeover.
The ordered FIB mechanism has the major advantage that it is a
control plane only solution. However, SRLGs require a per-
destination calculation, and the convergence delay may be high,
bounded by the network diameter. The use of signaling as an
accelerator may reduce the number of destinations that experience the
full delay, and hence reduce the total re-convergence time to an
acceptable period.
The nearside and farside tunnel methods deal relatively easily with
SRLGs and uncorrelated changes. The convergence delay would be
small. However these methods require the use of tunneled forwarding
which is not supported on all router hardware, and raises issues of
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
forwarding performance. When used with PLSN, the amount of traffic
that was tunneled would be significantly reduced, thus reducing the
forwarding performance concerns. If the selected repair mechanism
requires the use of tunnels, then a tunnel based loop prevention
scheme may be acceptable.
11. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations that arise from this draft.
12. Security Considerations
This document analyzes the problem of micro-loops and summarizes a
number of potential solutions that have been proposed. These
solutions require only minor modifications to existing routing
protocols and therefore do not add additional security risks.
However a full security analysis would need to be provided within the
specification of a particular solution proposed for deployment.
13. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge contributions to this document
made by Clarence Filsfils.
14. Informative References
[I-D.atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers]
K, A. and S. Bryant, "Synchronisation of Loop Free Timer
Values", draft-atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers-04 (work in
progress), February 2008.
[I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels]
Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "IP
Fast Reroute using tunnels", draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-03
(work in progress), November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework]
Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-12 (work in progress),
September 2009.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses]
Shand, M., Bryant, S., and S. Previdi, "IP Fast Reroute
Using Not-via Addresses",
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-04 (work in
progress), July 2009.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis]
Zinin, A., "Analysis and Minimization of Microloops in
Link-state Routing Protocols",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-01 (work in progress),
October 2005.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib]
Francois, P., "Loop-free convergence using oFIB",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib-02 (work in progress),
February 2008.
[OPT] Francois, P., Shand, M., and O. Bonaventure, "Disruption
free topology reconfiguration in OSPF networks"", IEEE
INFOCOM May 2007, Anchorage, 2007.
[RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[SIG] Francois, P. and O. Bonaventure, "Avoiding transient loops
during IGP convergence", IEEE INFOCOM March 2005, Miami,
Fl, USA, 2005.
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft A Framework for Loop-free Convergence October 2009
Authors' Addresses
Mike Shand
Cisco Systems
250, Longwater Ave,
Green Park,, Reading, RG2 6GB,
United Kingdom.
Email: mshand@cisco.com
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
250, Longwater Ave,
Green Park,, Reading, RG2 6GB
United Kingdom.
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
Shand & Bryant Expires April 23, 2010 [Page 23]
