[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                    Pierre Francois
Internet-Draft                                       Olivier Bonaventure
Intended status: Informational          Universite catholique de Louvain
Expires: April 23, 2007                                       Mike Shand
                                                          Stewart Bryant
                                                         Stefano Previdi
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        October 20, 2006


                    Loop-free convergence using oFIB
                     draft-francois-ordered-fib-02

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This draft describes a mechanism for use in conjunction with link
   state routing protocols which prevents the transient loops which
   would otherwise occur during topology changes.  It does this by
   correctly sequencing the FIB updates on the routers.



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


   This mechanism can be used in the case of non-urgent link or node
   shutdowns and restarts or link metric changes.  It can also be used
   in conjunction with a FRR mechanism which converts a sudden link or
   node failure into a non-urgent topology change.  This is possible
   where a complete repair path is provided for all affected
   destinations.

   After a non-urgent topology change, each router computes a rank that
   defines the time at which it can safely update its FIB.  A method for
   accelerating this loop-free convergence process by the use of
   completion messages is also described.


1.  Introduction

   With link-state protocols [1][2], each time the network topology
   changes, some routers need to modify their Forwarding Information
   Base (FIB) to take into account the new topology.  Each topology
   change causes a convergence phase.  During this phase, routers may
   transiently have inconsistent FIBs, which may lead to packet loops
   and losses, even if the reachability of the destinations is not
   compromised after the topology change.  Packet losses and transient
   loops can also occur in the case of a link down event implied by a
   maintenance operation, even if this operation is predictable and not
   urgent.  When the link state change is a metric update and when a new
   link is brought up in the network, there is no direct loss of
   connectivity, but transient packet loops and loss can still occur.

   For example, in Figure 1, if the link between X and Y is shut down by
   an operator, packets destined to X can loop between R and Y when Y
   has updated its FIB while R has not yet updated its FIB, and packets
   destined to Y can loop between X and S if X updates its FIB before S.
   According to the current behaviour of ISIS and OSPF, this scenario
   will happen most of the time because X and Y are the first routers to
   be aware of the failure, so that they will update their FIBs first.
















Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


                                     1
                       X-------------/-------------Y
                       |                           |
                       |                           |
                       |                           |
                       |                           |
                     1 |                           | 1
                       |                           |
                       |                           |
                       |                           |
                       |                           |
                       S---------------------------R
                                     2

                        Figure 1: A simple topology

   It should be noted that the loops can occur remotely from the
   failure, not just adjacent to it.

   The goal of this draft is to define a mechanism which sequences the
   router FIB updates to maintain consistency throughout the network.
   By correctly setting the FIB change order no looping or packet loss
   can occur.  As described in [4] this mechanism may be applied to the
   case of managed link-state changes, i.e. link metric change, manual
   link down/up, manual router down/up, and managed state changes of a
   set of links attached to one router.  It may also be applied to the
   case where one or more network elements are protected by a fast re-
   route mechanism [3] [7].  The mechanisms that are used in the failure
   case are exactly the same as those used for managed changes.  For
   simplicity this draft makes no further distinction between managed
   and unplanned changes.


2.  The required FIB update order

   This section provides an overview of the required ordering of the FIB
   updates.  A more detailed analysis of the rerouting dynamics and
   correctness proofs of the mechanism can be found in [6].

2.1.  Single Link Events

   For simplicity the correct ordering for single link changes are
   described first.  The draft then builds on this to demonstrate that
   the same principles can be applied to more complex scenarios such as
   line card or node changes.






Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


2.1.1.  Link Down / Metric Increase

   First consider the non-urgent failure of a link or the increase of a
   link metric.  In this case, a router R MUST NOT update its FIB until
   all other routers that send traffic via R and the affected link have
   first updated their FIBs.

   The following argument shows that this rule ensures the correct order
   of FIB change when the link X->Y is shut down or its metric is
   increased.

   An "outdated" FIB entry for a destination is defined as being a FIB
   entry that still reflects the shortest path(s) in use before the
   topology change.  Once a packet reaches a router R that has an
   outdated FIB entry for the packet destination, then, provided the
   oFIB ordering is respected, the packet will continue to X only
   traversing routers that also have an outdated FIB entry for the
   destination.  The packet thus reaches X without looping and will be
   forwarded to Y via X->Y (or in the case of FRR, the X->Y repair path)
   and hence reach its destination.

   Since it can be assumed that the original topology was loop-free, Y
   will never use the link Y->X to reach the destination and hence the
   path(s) between Y and the destination are guaranteed to be unaffected
   by the topology change.  It therefore follows that the packet
   arriving at Y will reach its destination without looping.

   Since it can also be assumed that the new topology is loop-free, by
   definition a packet cannot loop while being forwarded exclusively by
   routers with an updated FIB entry.

   In other words, when the oFIB ordering is respected, if a packet
   reaches an outdated router, it can never subsequently reach an
   updated router, and cannot loop because from this point on it will
   only be forwarded on the consistent path that was used before the
   event.  If it does not reach an outdated router, it will only be
   forwarded on the loop free path that will be used after the
   convergence.

   According to the proposed ordering, X will be the last router to
   update its FIB.  Once it has updated its FIB, the link X->Y can
   actually be shut down (or the repair removed).

   If the link X-Y is bidirectional a similar process must be run to
   order the FIB update for destinations using the link in the direction
   Y->X. As has already been shown, no packet ever traverses the X-Y
   link in both directions, and hence the operation of the two ordering
   processes is orthogonal.



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


2.1.2.  Link Up / Metric Decrease

   In the case of link up events or metric decreases, a router R MUST
   update its FIB BEFORE all other routers that WILL use R to reach the
   affected link.

   The following argument shows that this rule ensures the correct order
   of FIB change when the link X->Y is brought into service or its
   metric is decreased.

   Firstly, when a packet reaches a router R that has already updated
   its FIB, all the routers on the path from R to X will also have
   updated their FIB, so that the packet will reach X and be forwarded
   along X->Y, ultimately reaching its destination.

   Secondly, a packet cannot loop between routers that have not yet
   updated their FIB.  This proves that no packet can loop.

2.2.  Multi-link events

   The following sections describe the required ordering for single
   events which may be manifest as multiple link events.  For example,
   the failure of a router may be notified to the rest of the network as
   the individual failure of all its attached links.  The means of
   identifying the event type from the collection of received link
   events is described in Section 3.

2.2.1.  Router Down events

   In the case of the non-urgent shut-down of a router, a router R MUST
   NOT update its FIB until all other routers that send traffic via R
   and the affected router have first updated their FIBs.

   Using a proof similar to that for link failure, it can be shown that
   no loops will occur if this ordering is respected [6].

2.2.2.  Router Up events

   In the case of a router being brought into service, a router R MUST
   update its FIB BEFORE all other routers that WILL use R to reach the
   affected router.

   A proof similar to that for link up, shows that no loops will occur
   if this ordering is respected [6].







Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


2.2.3.  Linecard Failure/Restoration Events

   The failure of a line card involves the failure of a set of links all
   of which have a single node in common, i.e. the parent router.  The
   ordering to be applied is the same as if it were the failure of the
   parent router.

   In a similar way, the restoration of an entire linecard to service as
   a single event can be treated as if the parent router were returning
   to service.


3.  Deducing the topology change

   As has been described, a single event such as the failure or
   restoration of a single link, single router or a linecard may be
   notified to the rest of the network as a set of individual link
   change events.  It is necessary to deduce from this collection of
   link state notifications the type of event that has occurred in the
   network and hence the required ordering.

   There are some events (for example a subsequent failure with
   conflicting repair requirements occurring before the ordered FIB
   process has completed) that cannot be correctly processed by this
   mechanism.  In these cases it is necessary to ensure that convergence
   falls back to the conventional mode of operation (see Section 6).

   In all cases it is necessary to wait some hold-down period after
   receiving the first notification to ensure that all routers have
   received the complete set of link state notifications associated with
   the single event.

   At any time, if a link change notification is received which would
   have no effect on the receiving router's FIB, then it may be ignored.

   When a link change event is received which impacts the receiving
   router's FIB, the routers at the near and far end of the link are
   noted.

   If no other event is received during the hold-down time, the event is
   treated as a link event.  Note that the reverse connectivity check
   means that only the first failure event, or second up event have an
   effect on the FIB.

   If all events received within the hold-down period have a single
   router (R) in common, then it is assumed that the change reflects an
   event (line-card or router change) concerning the common router (R).




Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


   If an event is received within the hold down period which does NOT
   reference the common router (R) then in this version of the
   specification normal convergence is invoked immediately (see
   Section 6).

   In the case of a link change event, the router at the far end of the
   link is deemed to be the common router (R).

   All ordering computations are based on treating the common router R
   as the root for both link and node events.


4.  Calculation of the ordering

   This section describes how the required ordering is calculated.

4.1.  Link or Router Down or Metric Increase

   To respect the proposed ordering, routers compute a rank that will be
   used to determine the time at which they are permitted to perform
   their FIB update.  In the case of a failure event rooted at router Y
   or an increase of the metric of link X->Y, router R computes the
   reverse Shortest Path Tree in the topology before the failure
   (rSPT_OLD) rooted at Y. This rSPT gives the shortest paths to reach Y
   before the failure.  The branch of the reverse SPT that is below R
   corresponds to the set of shortest paths to R that are used by the
   routers that reach Y via R.

   The rank of router R is defined as the depth (in number of hops) of
   this branch.  In the case of ECMP, the maximum depth of the ECMP path
   set is used.

   Router R is required to update its FIB at time

   T0 + H + rank * MAX_FIB

   where T0 is the arrival time of the link-state packet containing the
   topology change, H is the hold-down time and MAX_FIB is a network-
   wide constant that reflects the maximum time required to update a FIB
   irrespective of the change required.  The value of MAX_FIB is network
   specific and its determination is out of the scope of this document.
   This value must be agreed by all the routers in the network.  This
   agreement can be performed by using a capability TLV as defined in
   [8].

   All the routers that use R to reach Y will compute a lower rank than
   R, and hence the correct order will be respected.  It should be noted
   that only the routers that used Y before the event need to compute



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


   their rank.

4.2.  Link or Router Up or Metric Decrease

   In the case of a link or router up event rooted at Y or a link metric
   decrease affecting link Y->W, a router R must have a rank that is
   higher than the rank of the routers that it will use to reach Y,
   according to the rule described in Section 2.  The rank of R is thus
   the number of hops between R and Y in its renewed Shortest Path Tree.
   When R has multiple equal cost paths to Y, the rank is the length in
   hops of the longest ECMP path to Y.

   Router R is required to update its FIB at time

   T0 + H + rank * MAX_FIB

   It should be noted that only the routers that use Y after the event
   have to compute a rank, i.e. only the routers that have Y in their
   SPT after the link-state change.


5.  Acceleration of Ordered Convergence

   The mechanism described above is conservative, and hence may be
   relatively slow.  The purpose of this section is to describe a method
   of accelerating the controlled convergence in such a way that ordered
   loop-free convergence is still guaranteed.

   In many cases a router will complete its required FIB changes in a
   time much shorter than MAX_FIB and in many other cases, a router will
   not have to perform any FIB changes at all.

   This section describes the use of completion messages to speed up the
   convergence by providing a means for a router to inform those routers
   waiting for it, that it has completed any required FIB changes.  When
   a router has been advised of completion by all the routers for which
   it is waiting, it can safely update its own FIB without further
   delay.  In most cases this can result in a sub-second re-convergence
   time comparable with that of normal convergence.

   Routers maintain a waiting list of the neighbours from which a
   completion message must be received.  Upon reception of a completion
   message from a neighbour, a router removes this neighbour from its
   waiting list.  Once its waiting list becomes empty, the router is
   allowed to update its FIB immediately even if its ranking timer has
   not yet expired.  Once this is done, the router sends a completion
   message to the neighbours that are waiting for it to complete.  Those
   routers are listed in a list called the Notification List.



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


   Completion messages contain an identification of the event to which
   they refer.

   Note that, since this is only an optimization, any loss of completion
   messages will result in the routers waiting their defined ranking
   time and hence the loop-free properties will be preserved.

5.1.  Construction of the waiting list and notification list

5.1.1.  Down events

   Consider a link or node down event rooted at router Y or the cost
   increase of the link X->Y. A router R will compute rSPT_OLD(Y) to
   determine its rank.  When doing this, R also computes the set of
   neighbors that R uses to reach the failing node or link, and the set
   of neighbors that are using R to reach the failing node or link.  The
   Notification list of R is equal to the former set and the Waiting
   list of R is equal to the latter.

   Note that R could include all its neighbors except those in the
   Waiting list in the Notification list, this has no impact on the
   correctness of the protocol, but would be unnecessarily inefficient.

5.1.2.  Up Events

   Consider a link or node up event rooted at router Y or the cost
   decrease of the link Y->X. A router R will compute its new SPT
   (SPT_new(R)).  The Waiting list is the set of nexthop routers that R
   uses to reach Y in SPT_new(R).

   In a simple implementation the notification list of R is all the
   neighbours of R excluding those in the Waiting list.  This may be
   further optimized by computing rSPT_new(Y) to determine those routers
   that are waiting for R to complete.

5.2.  Format of Completion Messages

   The format of completion messages and means of their delivery is
   routing protocol dependent and is outside the scope of this document.

   The following information is required:-

   .  Identity of the sender.

   .  Identity of the set of routing notifications being considered in
   the associated FIB change.





Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


6.  Fall back to Conventional Convergence

   In circumstances where a router detects that it is dealing with
   incomplete or inconsistent link state information, or when a further
   topology event is received before completion of the current ordered
   FIB update process it may be expedient to abandon the controlled
   convergence process and revert to conventional convergence by
   immediately expiring all the associated ranking timers.  This
   mechanism is similar to the one described in section 3.1 of [5].

   Abandoning the controlled convergence process may be instigated by
   any router within the network.


7.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Clarence Filsfils and Jean-Philippe Vasseur
   for their useful suggestions and comments.


8.  References

   [1]  "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
        information exchange protocol for use in conjunction  with the
        Protocol for providing the Connectionless mode Network Service
        (ISO 8473). ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition".

   [2]  J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [3]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
        draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-05.txt (work in progress),
        Oct 2006.

   [4]  Bryant, S. and M. Shand, "Applicability of Loop-free
        Convergence", draft-bryant-shand-lf-applicability-02.txt (work
        in progress), Oct 2006.

   [5]  Zinin, A., "Analysis and Minimization of Microloops in Link-
        state Routing Protocols",
        draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-01.txt (work in progress),
        Oct 2005.

   [6]  Francois, P. and O. Bonaventure, "Avoiding transient loops
        during IGP convergence in IP Networks", in Proceedings of
        INFOCOM'05, www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/OBO/papers/
        pfr-infocom05.pdf, March 2005.

   [7]  Pan, P. and al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


        Tunnels", RFC 4090.

   [8]  Atlas, A., Bryant, S., and M. Shand, "Synchronization of Loop
        Free Timer Values", draft-atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers-02.txt
        (work in progress), Oct 2006.

   [9]  Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Evans, J., and O. Bonaventure,
        "Achieving sub-second IGP convergence in large IP Networks",
        in ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review,
         http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1070873.1070877,
        July 2005.


Appendix A.  General SRLG Case

   This appendix describes the operation of oFIB when multiple link
   events which DO NOT have a node in common occur at approximately the
   same time.  The covered events are the failure of a set of links and
   the restoration of a set of links.  Note that for the case of a
   sudden SRLG failure, it is assumed that this is fully protected by a
   Fast Reroute mechanism, thus converting it into an non-urgent event.

   In order to be applicable, this solution requires that routers have
   the same, consistent, view of the set of events.  This can be
   achieved by means of the hold down mechanism described in Section 3
   and [5].

A.1.  SRLG Down Events

A.1.1.  Determining the ordering

   Consider the case where there are two failing components F and G. In
   the general case, the ranking for any given router R will be
   different for destinations reached through F and those reached
   through G. R must therefore partition its FIB changes into a number
   of destination sets.  In the worst-case, the number of destination
   sets will equal the number of failing links.

   Router R computes the ranks associated with each of the failing
   links.  It does this by applying the same algorithm as for single
   link down events.  The rank at which a router R must update its FIB
   for a destination D is equal to the minimum rank among the ranks of
   the links that R uses to reach the destination D.

A.1.2.  Completion messages

   As described above, a router R computes the Waiting and Notification
   lists associated with each of the failing links when it determines



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


   the ranking.

   When R has received a completion message from all the members of the
   waiting list associated with a link, it is allowed to update its FIB
   for all the destinations that it was previously reaching via that
   link.

   A router will send a completion message to the members of the
   Notification list for a given link once it has updated its FIB for
   all the prefixes that it reached via the link.

A.2.  SRLG Up Events

A.2.1.  Determining the ordering

   Consider the case where a set of links is brought up in the network.
   R computes the rank associated with each link, by the means of its
   renewed SPT.  The rank at which R must update its FIB for a
   destination D is the maximum rank among the ranks of the links that
   it will use to reach D.

A.2.2.  Completion messages

   As described above, a router R will compute the Waiting List and
   Notification List associated with each of the links that come up in
   the network.

   When R has received completion messages for the links that it will
   use to reach a destination D, it can safely update its FIB for D.

   When R has updated its FIB for all the destinations that it reaches
   via a link, it will send a completion message for this link towards
   the neighbors that are not in its Waiting List for this link.


Authors' Addresses

   Pierre Francois
   Universite catholique de Louvain
   Place Ste Barbe, 2
   Louvain-la-Neuve  1348
   BE

   Email: francois@info.ucl.ac.be







Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


   Olivier Bonaventure
   Universite catholique de Louvain
   Place Ste Barbe, 2
   Louvain-la-Neuve  1348
   BE

   Email: bonaventure@info.ucl.ac.be


   Mike Shand
   Cisco Systems
   Green Park, 250, Longwater Avenue,
   Reading  RG2 6GB
   UK

   Email: mshand@cisco.com


   Stewart Bryant
   Cisco Systems
   Green Park, 250, Longwater Avenue,
   Reading  RG2 6GB
   UK

   Email: sbryant@cisco.com


   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems
   Via Del Serafico 200
   00142 Roma
   Italy

   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com

















Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 23, 2007                [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/