[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

I:



Network Working Group                                          T. Eckert
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                              G. Cauchie
Expires: January 9, 2017                                Bouygues Telecom
                                                                W. Braun
                                                                M. Menth
                                                 University of Tuebingen
                                                            July 8, 2016


               Fast ReRoute (FRR) Extensions for BIER-TE
                      draft-eckert-bier-te-frr-00

Abstract

   This document proposes an Fast ReRoute (FRR) extension to the BIER-TE
   Architecture [I-D.eckert-bier-te-arch].  The FRR procedure has to be
   supported by the BIER-TE Controller host and the BFRs that are
   attached to a link/adjacency for which FRR support is required.
   Thus, the FRR concept can be incrementally deployed in the data plane
   to only those BFR adjacent to adjacencies for which FRR protection is
   desired.

   The FRR procedure does not require changes to the packet format
   described in [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] that is also used for BIER-
   TE.  Existing BIER-TE tables do not have to be altered.  FRR
   procedures do require additional forwarding plane logic on the BFR
   that need to support FRR.

   An additional table is needed that carries information about pre-
   computed backup paths.  This table is used to modify upon detection
   of failure the bitstring in the BIER header.  To prevent packet
   duplicates, tunneling mechanisms such as remote adjacencies or BIER-
   in-BIER encapsulation can be leveraged.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any




Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  FRR Key Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The BIER-TE Adjacency FRR Table (BTAFT) . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  FRR in BIER-TE forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  FRR in the BIER-TE Controller Host  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  BIER-TE FRR Benefits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Adjustment to the BIER-TE Forwarding Pseudocode . . . . . . .   7
   8.  BIER-TE and existing FRR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   FRR is an optional procedure.  To leverage it, the BIER-TE controller
   host and BFRs need to support it.  It does not have to be supported
   on all BFRs, but only those that are attached to a link/adjacency for
   which FRR support is required.

   If BIER-TE FRR is supported by the BIER-TE controller host, then it
   needs to calculate the desired backup paths for link and/or node
   failures in the BIER-TE domain and download this information into the
   BIER-TE Adjacency FRR Table (BTAFT) of the BFRs.  The BTAFT then
   drives FRR operations in the BIER-TE forwarding plane of that BFR.



Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


   The FRR operations modify the BIER header to facilitate local bypass
   of failed elements.  In general, the backup is encoded in the
   bitstring of the packet.  To avoid duplicates, it may be necessary to
   reset some bits in the bitstring or to use tunneling to the next-hops
   and next-next-hops of the multicast tree.  Link and node failures can
   be addressed by the FRR mechanism.

   Note that BIER-TE FRR does not require additional state depending on
   the multicast trees in the network but only depends on the network
   topology.

   FRR is an optional procedure because it does require additional
   control plane, and forwarding plane and not all BIER-TE networks may
   want to use it.  Alternatives to FRR include the following:

   "Live-Live" - transmitting the same traffic twice across two BIER-TE
   engineered diverse paths.  Live-Live is popular in deployments where
   actual receiver equipment can already deal with dual reception (eg:
   SMPTE ST 2022-7 seamless protection switching in video system).
   Likewise, MoFRR (Multicast only Fast Reroute, RFC 7431 [RFC7431])
   could be used on BFER to merge traffic from two TE engineered diverse
   paths for receivers that can not deal with dual-reception.

   BFIR FRR: Because BIER-TE is stateless, it is feasible to consider
   simply changing the bitstring on a BFIR upon detection of a failure.
   Such an approach would require fast propagation of detected failures,
   pre-calculation or fast-inline-calculation of the modified bitstrings
   and then quickly pushing these into the BFIR.  Due to the absence of
   statelessness in solutions preceeding BIER-TE there are no good data
   points what performance could be achieved from such an approach yet
   in various network/tree setups.

2.  FRR Key Concepts

   In this section we use the following example to explain the key
   concepts of BIER-TE FRR.  The example shows a multicast tree from
   BFR1 to BFR2, BFR6, BFR9.  The path to BFR2 is represented by the
   bits p1, p3 and p4.  The bits p1, p7, p7 and the bits p2, p8
   represent the path towards BFR6 and BFR 9, respectively.  Local_decap
   bits for all BFR2,BFR6, and BFR9 are also used.











Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


                     BFR1-------+
                      |         |
                      |         |
       p4      p3     v p1      v p2
   BFR2<---BFR3<-----BFR4------BFR5
            |         |      p5 |
            |         |         |
         p8 |         v p6      v p8
           BFR6<-----BFR7-----BFR9
              p7    p9  p10

   First, we consider that the link from P towards F fails.  The failure
   can be protected by the backup paths over BFR3->BFR6->BFR7: p3, p8,
   p9 (BP1) and BFR5->BFR9->BFR7: p5, p8, p10 (BP2).  The use of backup
   path BP1 does not cause duplicates.  Backup path BP2 would cause
   duplicates because the local_decap bit for D2 is still set in
   bitstring at P.  Two options exist to avoid duplicates.  1.  We reset
   the local_decap bit for D2.  This solution prevents the duplicate
   packet.  However, this method can lead to lost packets in other
   examples.  2.  We use a tunnel from P to F over D2 to prevent BIER
   packet processing at the nodes at the backup path.  Tunnels can be
   implemented in two different ways.

   1.  A remote adjacency represented by a single bit which is a tunnel
       in the routing underlay.  For an MPLS routing underlay, this can
       be implemented using an MPLS label stack.  In the example we
       would introduce an additional bit (eg: p11) representing the
       tunnel.

   2.  BIER-in-BIER encapsulation using an additional BIER header with
       NextProto = BIER.  BFRs need to support this feature.  This
       methods does not require additional bits for remote adjacencies
       compared to remote adjacencies but it increases the size of the
       packet header.  In this example the new bitstring contains the
       bits of BP2 and an additional local_decap bit for BFR7.

   Now, we consider that BFR7 fails.  The backup path must send the
   packets to all downstream next next-hops (DS-NNHs), i.e. the next-
   hops of the sub-tree rooted of BFR7.  BFR4 can identify the DS-NNHs
   by checking the bits of interest of the failed node BFR7.  BFR6 is
   such a node because bit p7 is set.  BFR9 is not downstream because
   there is no bit of interest from BFR7 to BFR9.  Sending packets to
   BFR9 would causes duplicates because BFR9 is served using the branch
   BFR1->BFR5->BFR9.

   Protection against link failures only requires knowledge of the
   failed adjacency.  Protection against node failures requires
   additional knowledge of the downstream nodes of the tree.  The



Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


   computation of appropriate backup paths, AddBitmasks, ResetBitmasks,
   and BitPositions is outside of the scope of this document.

3.  The BIER-TE Adjacency FRR Table (BTAFT)

   The BIER-TE IF FRR Table exists in every BFR that is supporting BIER-
   TE FRR.  It is indexed by FRR Adjacency Index that is compromised of
   the SI and the adjacency.  Associated with each FRR Adjacency Index
   is the failed BitPosition (F-BP), Downstream BitPosition (DS-BP),
   ResetBitmask, and AddBitmask.  The table can be configured to enable
   different actions for the AddBitMask.  Either the table is configured
   to apply BIER-in-BIER encapsulation with a new BIER header containing
   the AddBitmask as new bitstring or to simply add the bits on the
   current bitstring.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   | FRR Adjacency | Failed  | Downstream  | ResetBitmask | AddBitmask |
   | Index         | BP      | BP          |              |            |
   =====================================================================
   | 0:1           | 5       | 5           |  ..0010000   | ..11000000 |
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   ...

   An FRR Adjacency is an adjacency that is used in the BIFT of the BFR.
   The BFR has to be able to determine whether the adjacency is up or
   down in less than 50msec.  An FRR adjacency can be a
   forward_connected adjacency with fast L2 link state Up/Down state
   notifications or a forward_connected or forward_routed adjacency with
   a fast aliveness mechanism such as BFD.  Details of those mechanism
   are outside the scope of this architecture.

   The FRR Adjacency Index is the index that would be indicated on the
   fast Up/Down notifications to the BIER-TE forwarding plane and
   enables the selection of appropriate ResetBitMasks and AddBitmasks.

   The failed BitPosition is the BP in the BIFT in which the FRR
   Adjacency is used.  The downstream BitPosition is required to protect
   against node failures to identify the downstream adjacency as
   described in Section 2.  The backup path/tree is constructed of the
   individual ResetBitmasks and AddBitmasks of the downstream nodes.  To
   protect against link failures, the DS-BP field is set equally to the
   F-BP field.

4.  FRR in BIER-TE forwarding

   The BIER-TE forwarding plane receives fast Up/Down notifications of
   BIER adjacencies which are used to with the FRR Adjacencies Index for




Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


   different SIs.  From the failed BitPosition in the BTAFT entry, it
   remembers which BPs are currently affected (have a down adjacency).

   When a packet is received, BIER-TE forwarding checks if it has
   affected failed BPs and matching downstream BitPositions to which it
   would forward.  If it does, it will remove the ResetBitmask bits from
   the packets BitString.  Dependent on the table configuration it will
   either add the AddBitmask bits to the packets BitString or construct
   a new BIER header for rerouted packets.  Note that the original
   packet must be still available for non-affected bitpositions.

   Afterwards, normal BIER-TE forwarding occurs, taking the modified
   BitString or the additional BIER header into account.  Note that the
   information is pre-computed by the controller and the BFR immediately
   bypasses a failure after its detection.

5.  FRR in the BIER-TE Controller Host

   The basic rules how the BIER-TE controller host would calculate
   ResetBitMask and AddBitmask are as follows:

   1.  The BIER-TE controller has to decide which tunnel mode a BFR uses
       for the BTAFT: remote adjacencies or BIER-in-BIER tunneling.

   2.  The BIER-TE controller host has to determine whether a failure of
       the adjacency should be taken to indicate link or node failure.
       This is a policy decision.

   3.  The ResetBitmask has the BitPosition of the failed adjacency.

   4.  In the case of link protection, the AddBitmask are the segments
       forming a path from the BFR over to the BFR on the other end of
       the failed link.  The path can be formed using remote adjacencies
       for tunneling purposes.

   5.  In the case of node protection, the AddBitmask are the segments
       forming a tree from the BFR over to all necessary BFR downstream
       of the (assumed to be failed) BFR across the failed adjacency.

   6.  The ResetBitmask is extended with those segments that could lead
       to duplicate packets if the AddBitmask is added to possible
       BitStrings of packets using the failing BitPosition.

6.  BIER-TE FRR Benefits

   Compared to other FRR solutions, such as RSVP-TE/P2MP FRR, BIER-TE
   FRR has two key distinctions




Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


   o  It maintains the goal of BIER-TE not to establish in-network per
      multicast traffic flow state.  For that reason, the backup path/
      trees are only tied to the topology but not to individual
      distribution trees.

   o  For the case of node failure, it allows to build a path engineered
      backup tree (4.) as opposed to only a set of p2p backup tunnels.

   o  BIER-in-BIER encapsulation enables backup tunnels in networks that
      do not provide a routing layer with tunneling capabilities.  It
      may simplify network management because additional tunnels (such
      as GRE) must not be setup in the routing layer beforehand.

7.  Adjustment to the BIER-TE Forwarding Pseudocode

   We augment the forwarding procedure presented in the BIER-TE draft to
   support FRR.

   The following procedure computes the Reset- and AddBitmaks when a
   adjacency up/down notification is triggered.  The masks can later be
   directly applied to the header to facilitate the backup.

      global ResetBitMaskByBT[BitStringLength]
      global AddBitMaskByBT[BitStringLength]
      global FRRaffectedBP

      void FrrUpDown(FrrAdjacencyIndex, UpDown)
      {
          global FRRAdjacenciesDown
          local Idx = FrrAdjacencyIndex

          if (UpDown == Up)
              FRRAdjacenciesDown &= ~ 2<<(FrrAdjacencyIndex-1)
          else
              FRRAdjacenciesDown |=   2<<(FrrAdjacencyIndex-1)

          for (Index = GetFirstBitPosition(FRRAdjacenciesDown); Index ;
              Index = GetNextBitPosition(FRRAdjacenciesDown, Index))

              local BP = BTAFT[Index].BitPosition
              FRRaffectedBP |= 2<<(Index)
              ResetBitMaskByBT[BP] |= BTAFT[Index].ResetBitMask
              AddBitMaskByBT[BP]   |= BTAFT[Index].AddBitMask
      }

   The ForwardBierTePacket procedure must be modified by applying the
   FRR operations when necessary.




Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


      void ForwardBierTePacket (Packet)
      {
          // We calculate in BitMask the subset of BPs of the BitString
          // for which we have adjacencies. This is purely an
          // optimization to avoid to replicate for every BP
          // set in BitString only to discover that for most of them,
          // the BIFT has no adjacency.

          local BitMask = Packet->BitString
          Packet->BitString &= ~MyBitsOfInterest
          BitMask &= MyBitsOfInterest

          // FRR Operations
          // Note: this algorithm is not optimal yet for ECMP cases
          // it performs FRR replacement for all candidate ECMP paths

          local MyFRRBP = BitMask & FRRaffectedBP
          for (BP = GetFirstBitPosition(MyFRRNP); BP ;
               BP = GetNextBitPosition(MyFRRNP, BP))
              BitMask &= ~ResetBitMaskByBT[BP]
              BitMask |=  ResetBitMaskByBT[BP]

          // Replication
          for (Index = GetFirstBitPosition(BitMask); Index ;
               Index = GetNextBitPosition(BitMask, Index))
              foreach adjacency BIFT[Index]

                  if(adjacency == ECMP(ListOfAdjacencies, seed) )
                      I = ECMP_hash(sizeof(ListOfAdjacencies),
                                    Packet->Entropy, seed)
                      adjacency = ListOfAdjacencies[I]

                  PacketCopy = Copy(Packet)

                  switch(adjacency)
                      case forward_connected(interface,neighbor,DNR):
                          if(DNR)
                              PacketCopy->BitString |= 2<<(Index-1)
                          SendToL2Unicast(PacketCopy,interface,neighbor)

                      case forward_routed([VRF],neighbor):
                          SendToL3(PacketCopy,[VRF,]l3-neighbor)

                      case local_decap([VRF],neighbor):
                          DecapBierHeader(PacketCopy)
                          PassTo(PacketCopy,[VRF,]Packet->NextProto)
      }




Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


8.  BIER-TE and existing FRR

   BIER-TE as described above is an advanced method for node-protection
   where the replication in a failed node is on the fly replaced by
   another replication tree through bit operations on the BitString.

   If BIER-TE FRR is not feasible or necessary, it is also possible for
   BIER-TE to leverage any existing form of "link" protection.  For
   example: instead of directly setting up a forward_connected adjacency
   to a next-hop neighbor, this can be a "protected" adjacency that is
   maintained by RSVP-TE (or another FRR mechanism) and passes via a
   backup path if the link fails.

   BIER-in-BIER encapsulation provides P2MP protection in node failure
   cases because the new header can contain a new multicast.  This
   allows for the least packet duplication if the routing underlay does
   not provide P2MP tunnels.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Greg Shepherd, Ijsbrand Wijnands and
   Neale Ranns for their extensive review and suggestions.

11.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

      00: Initial version based on draft-eckert-bier-arch-03.

12.  References

   [I-D.eckert-bier-te-arch]
              Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., Braun, W., and M. Menth, "Traffic
              Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication BIER-TE",
              draft-eckert-bier-te-arch-03 (work in progress), March
              2016.

   [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture]
              Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and
              S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
              Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-03 (work in
              progress), January 2016.







Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 BIER-TE FRR                     July 2016


   [RFC7431]  Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
              Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7431, August 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7431>.

Authors' Addresses

   Toerless Eckert
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: eckert@cisco.com


   Gregory Cauchie
   Bouygues Telecom

   Email: GCAUCHIE@bouyguestelecom.fr


   Wolfgang Braun
   University of Tuebingen

   Email: wolfgang.braun@uni-tuebingen.de


   Michael Menth
   University of Tuebingen

   Email: menth@uni-tuebingen.de






















Eckert, et al.           Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/