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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 6976

Network Working Group                                    Pierre Francois
Internet-Draft                                       Olivier Bonaventure
Intended status: Experimental           Universite catholique de Louvain
Expires: April 25, 2011                                       Mike Shand
                                                          Stewart Bryant
                                                         Stefano Previdi
                                                       Clarence Filsfils
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        October 22, 2010


                    Loop-free convergence using oFIB
                    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib-04

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.

   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.

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."




Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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.



































Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Conventions used in the document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  The required FIB update order  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Single Link Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.1.  Link Down / Metric Increase  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.2.  Link Up / Metric Decrease  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Multi-link events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.1.  Router Down events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.2.  Router Up events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.3.  Linecard Failure/Restoration Events  . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Applying ordered FIB updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Deducing the topology change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Deciding if ordered FIB updates applies  . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Computation of the ordering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Link or Router Down or Metric Increase . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Link or Router Up or Metric Decrease . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Acceleration of Ordered Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Construction of the waiting list and notification list . . 11
       6.1.1.  Down events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       6.1.2.  Up Events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.2.  Format of Completion Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Fall back to Conventional Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  oFIB state machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  OFIB_STABLE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.2.  OFIB_HOLDING_DOWN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.3.  OFIB_HOLDING_UP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.4.  OFIB_ONGOING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.5.  OFIB_ABANDONED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
















Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


1.  Conventions used in the document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [4].


2.  Introduction

   With link-state protocols, such as IS-IS [1] and OSPF [5], 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.


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

                        Figure 1: A simple topology




Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   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.  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
   [7] [6].  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.


3.  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 [3].

3.1.  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.

3.1.1.  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



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   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.

3.1.2.  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.



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


3.2.  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 4.1.

3.2.1.  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 [3].

3.2.2.  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 [3].

3.2.3.  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.


4.  Applying ordered FIB updates

4.1.  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



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   network and hence the required ordering.

   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 all events received within some 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).

   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.

4.2.  Deciding if ordered FIB updates applies

   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 7).

   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.

   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 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 7).

   The sudden failure of a link or a set of links that are not protected
   using a FRR mechanism must be processed using the conventional mode
   of operation.

   In summary an ordered FIB process is applicable iif the set of link
   state notifications received between the first event and the hold



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   down period reference a common router R, and one of the following
   assertions is verified :
      .  The set of notifications refer to link down events concerning
      protected links and metric increase events
      .  The set of notifications refer to link up events and metric
      decrease events.


5.  Computation of the ordering

   This section describes how the required ordering is computed.

5.1.  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
   their rank.






Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


5.2.  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 3.  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.


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



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   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.

6.1.  Construction of the waiting list and notification list

6.1.1.  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.

6.1.2.  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.

6.2.  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.
   An encoding of completion message for IS-IS is proposed in [2].

   The following information is required:

      .  Identity of the sender.
      .  A list of routing notifications being considered in the
      associated FIB change.  Each notification is defined as :
         .  Node ID of the near end of the link
         .  Node ID of the far end of the link
         .  Old Metric





Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


         .  New Metric


7.  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.  Fall back mechanisms are investigated in [9].
   The state machine defined in this version of the draft does not make
   an assumption on which fall back mechanism will be used.


8.  oFIB state machine

   An ofib capable router maintains an ofib state value which can be one
   of : OFIB_STABLE, OFIB_HOLDING_DOWN, OFIB_HOLDING_UP, OFIB_ABANDONED,
   OFIB_ONGOING.

   An ofib capable router maintains a timer, Hold_down_timer.  An ofib
   capable router is configured with a value refered to as
   HOLD_DOWN_DURATION.  This configuration can be performed manually or
   using [8].

   An ofib capable router maintains a timer, rank_timer.

8.1.  OFIB_STABLE

   OFIB_STABLE is the state of a router which is not currently involved
   in any convergence process.  This router is ready to process an event
   by applying ofib.

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing an event of the
   type link X--Y down or metric increase to be processed using oFIB.

   ACTION : Set state to OFIB_HOLDING_DOWN.  Start Hold_down_timer.
   ofib_current_common_set = {X,Y}.  Compute rank with respect to the
   event, as defined in Section 5.  Store Waiting List and Notification
   List for X--Y obtained from the rank computation.

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing an event of the
   type link X--Y up or metric decrease which to be processed using
   oFIB.

   ACTION :





Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


        Set state to OFIB_HOLDING_UP.
        Start Hold_down_timer.
        ofib_current_common_set = {X,Y}
        Compute rank with respect to the event, as defined in section
        Section 5 .
        Store Waiting List and Notification List for X--Y obtained from
        the rank computation.

8.2.  OFIB_HOLDING_DOWN

   OFIB_HOLDING_DOWN is the state of a router that is collecting a set
   of link down or metric increase link-state packets to be processed
   together using controlled convergence.

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing an event of the
   type link up or metric decrease which in itself can be processed
   using oFIB.

   ACTION :

        Set state to OFIB_ABANDONED.
        Reset Hold_down_timer.
        Trigger AAH mechanism

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing an event of the
   type link A--B down or metric increase which in itself can be
   processed using oFIB.

   ACTION :

        ofib_current_common_set =
        intersection(ofib_current_common_set,{A,B}).
        If ofib_current_common_set is empty, then there is no longer a
        node in common in all the pending link-state changes.
             Set state to OFIB_ABANDONED
             Reset Hold_down_timer
             Trigger AAH mechanism.
        If ofib_current_common set is not empty, update waiting list and
        notification list as defined in Section 5.  Note that in the
        case of a single link event, the link-state packet received when
        the router is in this state describes the state change of the
        other direction of the link, hence no changes will be made to
        the waiting and notification lists.

   EVENT : Hold_down_timer expires.

   ACTION :




Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


        Set state to OFIB_ONGOING.
        Start rank_timer with computed rank.

   EVENT : Reception of a completion message

   ACTION : Remove the sender from waiting list associated with the
   event identified in the completion message.

8.3.  OFIB_HOLDING_UP

   OFIB_HOLDING_UP is the state of a router that is collecting a set of
   link up or metric decrease link-state packets to be processed
   together using controlled convergence.

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing an event of the
   type link down or metric increase to be processed using oFIB.

   ACTION :

        Set state to OFIB_ABANDONED.
        Reset Hold_down_timer.
        Trigger AAH mechanism.

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing an event of the
   type link A--B up or metric decrease to be processed using oFIB.

   ACTION :

        ofib_current_common_set =
        intersection(ofib_current_common_set,{A,B}).
        If ofib_current_common_set is empty, then there is no longer a
        common node in the set of pending link-state changes.
             Set state to OFIB_ABANDONED.
             Reset Hold_down_timer.
             Trigger AAH mechanism.
        If ofib_current_common set is not empty, update waiting list and
        notification list as defined in Section 5.  Note that in the
        case of a single link event, the link-state packet received when
        the router is in this state describes the state change of the
        other direction of the link, hence no changes will be made to
        the waiting and notification lists.

   EVENT : Reception of a completion message

   ACTION : Remove the sender from the waiting list associated with the
   event identified in the completion message.

   EVENT : Hold_down_timer expires.



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   ACTION :

        Set state to OFIB_ONGOING.
        Start rank_timer with computed rank.

8.4.  OFIB_ONGOING

   OFIB_ONGOING is the state of a router that is applying the ordering
   mechanism w.r.t. the set of LSP collected when in OFIB_HOLDING_DOWN
   or OFIB_HOLDING_UP state.

   EVENT : rank_timer expires or waiting list becomes empty.

   ACTION :

        Perform FIB updates according to the change.
        Send completion message to each member of the notification list.
        Set State to OFIB_STABLE.

   EVENT : Reception of a completion message

   ACTION : Remove the sender from the waiting list.

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing a link state
   change event.

   ACTION :

        Set state to OFIB_ABANDONED.
        Trigger AAH.
        Start Hold_down_timer.

8.5.  OFIB_ABANDONED

   OFIB_ABANDONED is the state of a router that has fallen back to fast
   convergence due to the reception of link-state packets that cannot be
   dealt together using oFIB.

   EVENT : Reception of a link-state packet describing a link-state
   change event.

   ACTION : Trigger AAH, reset Hold_down_timer.

   EVENT : Hold_down_timer expires.

   ACTION : Set state to OFIB_STABLE





Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


9.  IANA considerations

   There are no IANA considerations which arise from this document.  Any
   such considerations will be called out in protocol specific documents
   such as [8]and [2]


10.  Security considerations

   This draft requires only minor modifications to existing routing
   protocols and therefore does not add significant additional security
   risks.  However a full security analysis would need to be provided
   within the protocol specific specifications proposed for deployment.


11.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Jean-Philippe Vasseur for his useful
   suggestions and comments.


12.  Informative References

   [1]  International Organization for Standardization, "Intermediate
        system to Intermediate system intra-domain 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, Nov 2002.

   [2]  Bonaventure, O., "ISIS extensions for ordered FIB updates",
        draft-bonaventure-isis-ordered-00 (work in progress),
        February 2006.

   [3]  P. Francois and O. Bonaventure, "Avoiding transient loops during
        IGP convergence in IP Networks", in IEEE/ACM Transactions on
        Networking, http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications,
        December 2007.

   [4]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [5]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [6]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute Extensions to
        RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005.

   [7]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC 5714,
        January 2010.



Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   [8]  K, A. and S. Bryant, "Synchronisation of Loop Free Timer
        Values", draft-atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers-04 (work in
        progress), February 2008.

   [9]  Shand, M., Bryant, S., and P. Francois, "Mechanisms for safely
        abandoning loop-free convergence (AAH)",
        draft-bryant-francois-shand-ipfrr-aah-01 (work in progress),
        October 2008.


Authors' Addresses

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

   URI:   http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/


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

   URI:   http://inl.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: stbryant@cisco.com





Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Loop-free convergence using oFIB        October 2010


   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems
   Via Del Serafico 200
   00142 Roma
   Italy

   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems
   Brussels,
   Belgium

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com




































Pierre Francois, et al.  Expires April 25, 2011                [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/