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

Versions: (draft-atlas-mpls-te-express-path) 00 draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path

MPLS Working Group                                              A. Atlas
Internet-Draft                                                  J. Drake
Intended status: Informational                          Juniper Networks
Expires: April 19, 2014                                     S. Giacalone
                                                         Thomson Reuters
                                                                 D. Ward
                                                              S. Previdi
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        October 16, 2013


  Performance-based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed LSPs using TE
                           Metric Extensions
                   draft-ietf-mpls-te-express-path-00

Abstract

   In certain networks, it is critical to consider network performance
   criteria when selecting the path for an explicitly routed RSVP-TE
   LSP.  Such performance criteria can include latency, jitter, and loss
   or other indications such as the conformance to link performance
   objectives and non-RSVP TE traffic load.  This specification uses
   network performance data, such as is advertised via the OSPF and ISIS
   TE metric extensions (defined outside the scope of this document) to
   perform such path selections.

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
   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 April 19, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   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
     1.1.  Basic Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Oscillation and Stability Considerations  . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Using Performance Data Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  End-to-End Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Link Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Links out of compliance with Link Performance Objectives    6
       2.3.1.  Use of Anomalous Links for New Paths  . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.2.  Links entering the Anomalous State  . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.3.  Links leaving the Anomalous State . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction




















Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   In certain networks, such as financial information networks, network
   performance information is becoming as critical to data path
   selection as other existing metrics.  Network performance information
   can be obtained via either the TE Metric Extensions in OSPF
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions] or ISIS
   [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] or via a management system.  As
   with other TE information flooded via OSPF or ISIS, the TE metric
   extensions have a flooding scope limited to the local area or level.
   This document describes how to use that information for path
   selection for explicitly routed LSPs signaled via RSVP-TE [RFC3209].
   Methods of optimizing path selection for multiple parameters are
   generally computationally complex.  However, there are good
   heuristics for the delay-constrained lowest-cost (DCLC) computation
   problem [k-Paths_DCLC] that can be applied to consider both path cost
   and a maximum delay bound.  Some of the network performance
   information can also be used to prune links from a topology before
   computing the path.

   The path selection mechanisms described in this document apply to
   paths that are fully computed by the head-end of the LSP and then
   signaled in an ERO where every sub-object is strict.  This allows the
   head-end to consider IGP-distributed performance data without
   requiring the ability to signal the performance constraints in an
   object of the RSVP Path message.

   When considering performance-based data, it is obvious that there are
   additional contributors to latency beyond just the links.  Clearly
   end-to-end latency is a combination of router latency (e.g. latency
   from traversing a router without queueing delay), queuing latency,
   physical link latency and other factors.  While traversing a router
   can cause delay, that router latency can be included in the
   advertised link delay.  As described in
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions] and
   [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions], queuing delay must not be
   included in the measurements advertised by OSPF or ISIS.

   Queuing latency is specifically excluded to insure freedom from
   oscillations and stability issues that have plagued prior attempts to
   use delay as a routing metric.  If application traffic follows a path
   based upon latency constraints, the same traffic might be in an
   Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop-Behavior [RFC3246] with minimal queuing
   delay or another PHB with potentially very substantial per-hop
   queuing delay.  Only traffic which experiences relatively low
   congestion, such as Expedited Forwarding traffic, will experience
   delays very close to the sum of the reported link delays.

   This document does not specify how a router determines what values to
   advertise by the IGP; it does assume that the constraints specified



Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   in [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions] and
   [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] are followed.  Additionally, the
   end-to-end performance that is computed for an LSP path should be
   built from the individual link data.  Any end-to-end characterization
   used to determine an LSP's performance compliance should be fully
   reflected in the Traffic Engineering Database so that a path
   calculation can also determine whether a path under consideration
   would be in compliance.

1.1.  Basic Requirements

   The following are the requirements that motivate this solution.

   1.  Select a TE tunnel's path based upon a combination of existing
       constraints as well as on link-latency, packet loss, jitter, link
       performance objectives conformance, and bandwidth consumed by
       non-RSVP-TE traffic.

   2.  Ability to define different end-to-end performance requirements
       for each TE tunnel regardless of common use of resources.

   3.  Ability to periodically verify with the TE LSDB that a TE
       tunnel's current LSP complies with its configured end-to-end
       performance requirements.

   4.  Ability to move tunnels, using make-before-break, based upon
       computed end-to-end performance complying with constraints.

   5.  Ability to move tunnels away from any link that is violating an
       underlying link performance objective.

   6.  Ability to optionally avoid setting up tunnels using any link
       that is violating a link performance objective, regardless of
       whether end-to-end performance would still meet requirements.

   7.  Ability to revert back using make-before-break to the best path
       after a configurable period.

1.2.  Oscillation and Stability Considerations

   Past attempts to use unbounded delay or loss as metric sufferred from
   severe oscillations.  The use of performance based data must be such
   that undampened oscillations are not possible and stability cannot be
   impacted.

   The use of timers is often cited as a cure.  Oscillation that is
   damped by timers is known as "slosh".  If advertisement timers are
   very short relative to the jitter applied to RSVP-TE CSPF timers,



Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   then a partial oscillation occurs.  If RSVP-TE CSPF timers are short
   relative to advertisement timers, full oscillation (all traffic
   moving back and forth) can occur.  Even a partial oscillation causes
   unnecessary reordering which is considered at least minimally
   disruptive.

   Delay variation or jitter is affected by even small traffic levels.
   At even tiny traffic levels, the probability of a queue occupancy of
   one can produce a measured jitter proportional to or equal to the
   packet serialization delay.  Very low levels of traffic can increase
   the probability of queue occupancies of two or three packets enough
   to further increase the measured jitter.  Because jitter measurement
   is extremely sensitive to even very low traffic levels, any use of
   jitter is likely to oscillate.  There may be legitimate use of a
   jitter measurement in path computation that can be considered free of
   oscillation.

   Delay measurements that are not sensitive to traffic loads may be
   safely used in path computation.  Delay measurements made at the link
   layer or measurements made at a queuing priority higher than any
   significant traffic (such as DSCP CS7 or CS6 [RFC4594], but not CS2
   if traffic levels at CS3 and higher or EF and AF can affect the
   measurement).  Making delay measurements at the same priority as the
   traffic on affected paths is likely to cause oscillations.

2.  Using Performance Data Constraints

2.1.  End-to-End Constraints

   The per-link performance data available in the IGP
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions]
   [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] includes: unidirectional link
   delay, unidirectional delay variation, and link loss.  Each (or all)
   of these parameters can be used to create the path-level link-based
   parameter.

   It is possible to compute a CSPF where the link latency values are
   used instead of TE metrics, this results in ignoring the TE metrics
   and causing LSPs to prefer the lowest-latency paths.  In practical
   scenarios, latency constraints are typically a bound constraint
   rather than a minimization objective.  An end-to-end latency upper
   bound merely requires that the path computed be no more than that
   bound and does not require that it be the minimum latency path.  The
   latter is exactly the delay-constrained lowest-cost (DCLC) problem to
   which good heuristics have been proposed in the literature (e.g.
   [k-Paths_DCLC]).





Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   An end-to-end bound on delay variation can be used similarly as a
   constraint in the path computation on what links to explore where the
   path's delay variation is the sum of the used links' delay
   variations.

   For link loss, the path loss is not the sum of the used links'
   losses.  Instead, the path loss percentage is 100 - (100 -
   loss_L1)*(100 - loss_L2)*...*(100 - loss_Ln), where the links along
   the path are L1 to Ln.  The end-to-end link loss bound, computed in
   this fashion, can also be used as a constraint in the path
   computation.

   The heuristic algorithms for DCLC only address one constraint bound
   but having a CSPF that limits the paths explored (i.e. based on hop-
   count) can be combined [hop-count_DCLC].

2.2.  Link Constraints

   In addition to selecting paths that conform to a bound on performance
   data, it is also useful to avoid using links that do not meet a
   necessary constraint.  Naturally, if such a parameter were a known
   fixed value, then resource attribute flags could be used to express
   this behavior.  However, when the parameter associated with a link
   may vary dynamically, there is not currently a configuration-time
   mechanism to enforce such behavior.  An example of this is described
   in Section 2.3, where links may move in and out of conformance for
   link performance objectives with regards to latency, delay variation,
   and link loss.

   When doing path selection for TE tunnels, it has not been possible to
   know how much actual bandwidth is available that includes the
   bandwidth used by non-RSVP-TE traffic.  In
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions]
   [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions], the Unidirectional Available
   Bandwidth is advertised as is the Residual Bandwidth.  When computing
   the path for a TE tunnel, only links with at least a minimum amount
   of Unidirectional Available Bandwidth might be permitted.

   Similarly, only links whose loss is under a configurable value might
   be acceptable.  For these constraints, each link can be tested
   against the constraint and only explored in the path computation if
   the link passes.  In essence, a link that fails the constraint test
   is treated as if it contained a resource attribute in the exclude-any
   filter.

2.3.  Links out of compliance with Link Performance Objectives





Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   Link conformance to a link performance objective can change as a
   result of rerouting at lower layers.  This could be due to optical
   regrooming or simply rerouting of a FA-LSP.  When this occurs, there
   are two questions to be asked:

   a.  Should the link be trusted and used for the setup of new LSPs?

   b.  Should LSPs using this link automatically be moved to a secondary
       path?

2.3.1.  Use of Anomalous Links for New Paths

   If the answer to (a) is no for link latency performance objectives,
   then any link which has the Anomalous bit set in the Unidirectional
   Link Delay sub-TLV[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions]
   [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] should be removed from the
   topology before a path calculation is used to compute a new path.  In
   essence, the link should be treated exactly as if it fails the
   exclude-any resource attributes filter.[RFC3209].

   Similarly, if the answer to (a) is no for link loss performance
   objectives, then any link which has the Anomalous bit set in the Link
   Los sub-TLV should be treated as if it fails the exclude-any resource
   attributes filter.  If the answer to (a) is no for link jitter
   performance objectives, then any link that has the Anomalous bit set
   in the Unidirectional Delay Variation sub-
   TLV[I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] should be treated as if it
   fails the exclude-any resource attributes filter.

2.3.2.  Links entering the Anomalous State

   When a link enters the Anomalous state with respect to a parameter,
   this is an indication that LSPs using that link might also no longer
   be in compliance with their performance bounds.  It can also be
   considered an indication that something is changing that link and so
   it might no longer be trustworthy to carry performance-critical
   traffic.  Naturally, which performance criteria are important for a
   particular LSP is dependent upon the LSP's configuration and thus the
   compliance of a link with respect to a particular link performance
   objective is indicated per performance criterion.

   At the ingress of a TE tunnel, a TE tunnel may be configured to be
   sensitive to the Anomalous state of links in reference to latency,
   delay variation, and/or loss.  Additionally, such a TE tunnel may be
   configured to either verify continued compliance, to switch
   immediately to a standby LSP, or to move to a different path.





Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   When a sub-TLV is received with the Anomalous bit set when previously
   it was clear, the list of interested TE tunnels must be scanned.
   Each such TE tunnel should either have its continued compliance
   verified, be switched to a hot standby, or do a make-before-break to
   a secondary path.

   It is not sufficient to just look at the Anomalous bit in order to
   determine when TE tunnels must have their compliance verified.  When
   changing to set, the Anomalous bit merely provides a hint that
   interested TE tunnels should have their continued compliance
   verified.

2.3.3.  Links leaving the Anomalous State

   When a link leaves the Anomalous state with respect to a parameter,
   this can serve as an indication that those TE tunnels, whose LSPs
   were changed due to administrative policy when the link entered the
   Anomalous state, may want to reoptimize to a better path.  The hint
   provided by the Anomalous state change may help optimize when to
   recompute for a better path.

3.  IANA Considerations

   This document includes no request to IANA.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document is not currently believed to introduce new security
   concerns.

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Curtis Villamizar for his extensive
   detailed comments and suggested text in the Section 1 and
   Section 1.2.  The authors would also like to thank Xiaohu Xu and
   Sriganesh Kini for their review.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas,
              A., Filsfils, C., and W. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-
              extensions-01 (work in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions]



Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


              Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
              Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
              Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-04 (work
              in progress), June 2013.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3246]  Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
              J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
              Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August
              2006.

   [hop-count_DCLC]
              Agrawal, H., Grah, M., and M. Gregory, "Optimization of
              QoS Routing", 6th IEEE/AACIS International Conference on
              Computer and Information Science 2007, 2007, <http://
              ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
              articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4276447>.

   [k-Paths_DCLC]
              Jia, Z. and P. Varaiya, "Heuristic methods for delay
              constrained least cost routing using k-shortest-paths",
              IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 51(4), 2006, <http:
              //paleale.eecs.berkeley.edu/~varaiya/papers_ps.dir/kdclc-
              ieeev4.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses

   Alia Atlas
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, MA  01886
   USA

   Email: akatlas@juniper.net








Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions    October 2013


   John Drake
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   USA

   Email: jdrake@juniper.net


   Spencer Giacalone
   Thomson Reuters
   195 Broadway
   New York, NY  10007
   USA

   Email: Spencer.giacalone@thomsonreuters.com


   Dave Ward
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: dward@cisco.com


   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems
   Via Del Serafico 200
   Rome  00142
   Italy

   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems
   Brussels
   Belgium

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com









Atlas, et al.            Expires April 19, 2014                [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/