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

Versions: (draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 8102

Routing Area Working Group                                P. Sarkar, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Individual Contributor
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Hegde
Expires: July 24, 2017                                         C. Bowers
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                           RtBrick, Inc.
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                        January 20, 2017


              Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
                draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-13

Abstract

   The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
   specification guarantees only link-protection.  The resulting Remote-
   LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not guarantee node-
   protection for all destinations being protected by it.

   This document describes an extension to the Remote Loop-Free based IP
   fast reroute mechanisms, that specifes procedures for determining if
   a given PQ-node provides node-protection for a specific destination
   or not.  The document also shows how the same procedure can be
   utilized for collection of complete characteristics for alternate
   paths.  Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is
   precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not
   fitting constraints.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].

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/.





Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   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 July 24, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Node Protection with Remote-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Additional Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Link-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.2.  Node-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.3.  Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.4.  Link-Protecting PQ Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.5.  Candidate Node-Protecting PQ Space  . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.6.  Cost-Based Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         2.2.6.1.  Link-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . .   7
         2.2.6.2.  Node-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . .   8
         2.2.6.3.  Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.3.  Computing Node-protecting R-LFA Path  . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.1.  Computing Candidate Node-protecting PQ-Nodes for
               Primary nexthops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.2.  Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to
               destinations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.3.3.  Computing Node-Protecting R-LFA Paths for
               Destinations with ECMP primary nexthop nodes  . . . .  13
       2.3.4.  Limiting extra computational overhead . . . . . . . .  17
   3.  Manageability of Remote-LFA Alternate Paths . . . . . . . . .  18
     3.1.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


     3.2.  The Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   The Remote-LFA [RFC7490] specification provides loop-free alternates
   that guarantee only link-protection.  The resulting Remote-LFA
   alternate nexthops (also referred to as the PQ-nodes) may not provide
   node-protection for all destinations covered by the same Remote-LFA
   alternate, in case of failure of the primary nexthop node.  Neither
   does the specification provide a means to determine the same.

   Also, the LFA Manageability [RFC7916] document requires a computing
   router to find all possible (including all possible Remote-LFA)
   alternate nexthops, collect the complete set of path characteristics
   for each alternate path, run an alternate-selection policy
   (configured by the operator) and find the best alternate path.  This
   will require the Remote-LFA implementation to gather all the required
   path characteristics along each link on the entire Remote-LFA
   alternate path.

   With current LFA [RFC5286] and Remote-LFA implementations, the
   forward SPF (and reverse SPF) is run with the computing router and
   its immediate 1-hop routers as the roots.  While that enables
   computation of path attributes (e.g.  SRLG, Admin-groups) for first
   alternate path segment from the computing router to the PQ-node,
   there is no means for the computing router to gather any path
   attributes for the path segment from the PQ-node to destination.
   Consequently any policy-based selection of alternate paths will
   consider only the path attributes from the computing router up until
   the PQ-node.

   This document describes a procedure for determining node-protection
   with Remote-LFA.  The same procedure is also extended for collection
   of a complete set of path attributes, enabling more accurate policy-
   based selection for alternate paths obtained with Remote-LFA.

1.1.  Abbreviations

   This document uses the following list of abbreviations.

      LFA - Loop Free Alternates



Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


      RLFA or R-LFA - Remote Loop Free Alternates

      ECMP - Equal Cost Multiple Path

      SPF - Shortest Path First graph computations

      NH - Next Hop node

2.  Node Protection with Remote-LFA

   Node-protection is required to provide protection of traffic on a
   given forwarding node, against the failure of the first-hop node on
   the primary forwarding path.  Such protection becomes more critical
   in the absence of mechanisms like non-stop-routing in the network.
   Certain operators refrain from deploying non-stop-routing in their
   network, due to the required complex state synchronization between
   redundant control plane hardwares it requires, and the significant
   additional performance complexities it hence introduces.  In such
   cases node-protection is essential to guarantee un-interrupted flow
   of traffic, even in the case of an entire forwarding node going down.

   The following sections discuss the node-protection problem in the
   context of Remote-LFA and propose a solution.

2.1.  The Problem

   To better illustrate the problem and the solution proposed in this
   document the following topology diagram from the Remote-LFA [RFC7490]
   draft is being re-used with slight modification.

                                             D1
                                            /
                                       S-x-E
                                      /     \
                                     N       R3--D2
                                      \     /
                                      R1---R2

                           Figure 1: Topology 1

   In the above topology, for all (non-ECMP) destinations reachable via
   the S-E link there is no standard LFA alternate.  As per the Remote-
   LFA [RFC7490] alternate specifications node R2 being the only PQ-node
   for the S-E link provides nexthop for all the above destinations.
   Table 1 below, shows all possible primary and Remote-LFA alternate
   paths for each destination.





Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


    +-------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------+
    | Destination | Primary Path | PQ-node | Remote-LFA Backup Path  |
    +-------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------+
    | R3          | S->E->R3     | R2      | S=>N=>R1=>R2->R3        |
    | E           | S->E         | R2      | S=>N=>R1=>R2->R3->E     |
    | D1          | S->E->D1     | R2      | S=>N=>R1=>R2->R3->E->D1 |
    | D2          | S->E->R3->D2 | R2      | S=>N=>R1=>R2->R3->D2    |
    +-------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------+

              Table 1: Remote-LFA backup paths via PQ-node R2

   A closer look at Table 1 shows that, while the PQ-node R2 provides
   link-protection for all the destinations, it does not provide node-
   protection for destinations E and D1.  In the event of the node-
   failure on primary nexthop E, the alternate path from Remote-LFA
   nexthop R2 to E and D1 also becomes unavailable.  So for a Remote-LFA
   nexthop to provide node-protection for a given destination, it is
   mandatory that, the shortest path from the given PQ-node to the given
   destination MUST NOT traverse the primary nexthop.

   In another extension of the topology in Figure 1 let us consider an
   additional link between N and E with the same cost as the other
   links.

                                             D1
                                            /
                                       S-x-E
                                      /   / \
                                     N---+   R3--D2
                                      \     /
                                      R1---R2

                           Figure 2: Topology 2

   In the above topology, the S-E link is no more on any of the shortest
   paths from N to R3, E and D1.  Hence R3, E and D1 are also included
   in both the Extended-P space and Q space of E (w.r.t S-E link).
   Table 2 below, shows all possible primary and R-LFA alternate paths
   via PQ-node R3, for each destination reachable through the S-E link
   in the above topology.  The R-LFA alternate paths via PQ-node R2
   remains same as in Table 1.










Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


     +-------------+--------------+---------+------------------------+
     | Destination | Primary Path | PQ-node | Remote-LFA Backup Path |
     +-------------+--------------+---------+------------------------+
     | R3          | S->E->R3     | R3      | S=>N=>E=>R3            |
     | E           | S->E         | R3      | S=>N=>E=>R3->E         |
     | D1          | S->E->D1     | R3      | S=>N=>E=>R3->E->D1     |
     | D2          | S->E->R3->D2 | R3      | S=>N=>E=>R3->D2        |
     +-------------+--------------+---------+------------------------+

              Table 2: Remote-LFA backup paths via PQ-node R3

   Again a closer look at Table 2 shows that, unlike Table 1, where the
   single PQ-node R2 provided node-protection for destinations R3 and
   D2, if we choose R3 as the R-LFA nexthop, it does not provide node-
   protection for R3 and D2 anymore.  If S chooses R3 as the R-LFA
   nexthop, in the event of the node-failure on primary nexthop E, on
   the alternate path from S to R-LFA nexthop R3, one of parallel ECMP
   path between N and R3 also becomes unavailable.  So for a Remote-LFA
   nexthop to provide node-protection for a given destination, it is
   also mandatory that, the shortest paths from S to the chosen PQ-node
   MUST NOT traverse the primary nexthop node.

2.2.  Additional Definitions

   This document adds and enhances the following definitions extending
   the ones mentioned in Remote-LFA [RFC7490] specification.

2.2.1.  Link-Protecting Extended P-Space

   The Remote-LFA [RFC7490] specification already defines this.  The
   link-protecting extended P-space for a link S-E being protected is
   the set of routers that are reachable from one or more direct
   neighbors of S, except primary node E, without traversing the S-E
   link on any of the shortest paths from the direct neighbor to the
   router.  This MUST exclude any direct neighbor for which there is at
   least one ECMP path from the direct neighbor traversing the link(S-E)
   being protected.

   For a cost-based definition for Link-protecting Extended P-Space
   refer to Section 2.2.6.1.

2.2.2.  Node-Protecting Extended P-Space

   The node-protecting extended P-space for a primary nexthop node E
   being protected, is the set of routers that are reachable from one or
   more direct neighbors of S, except primary node E, without traversing
   the node E.  This MUST exclude any direct neighbors for which there




Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   is at least one ECMP path from the direct neighbor traversing the
   node E being protected.

   For a cost-based definition for Node-protecting Extended P-Space
   refer to Section 2.2.6.2.

2.2.3.  Q-Space

   The Remote-LFA [RFC7490] draft already defines this.  The Q-space for
   a link S-E being protected is the set of nodes that can reach primary
   node E, without traversing the S-E link on any of the shortest paths
   from the node itself to primary nexthop E.  This MUST exclude any
   node for which there is at least one ECMP path from the node to the
   primary nexthop E traversing the link(S-E) being protected.

   For a cost-based definition for Q-Space refer to Section 2.2.6.3.

2.2.4.  Link-Protecting PQ Space

   A node Y is in link-protecting PQ space w.r.t the link (S-E) being
   protected, if and only if, Y is present in both link-protecting
   extended P-space and the Q-space for the link being protected.

2.2.5.  Candidate Node-Protecting PQ Space

   A node Y is in candidate node-protecting PQ space w.r.t the node (E)
   being protected, if and only if, Y is present in both node-protecting
   extended P-space and the Q-space for the link being protected.

   Please note, that a node Y being in candidate node-protecting PQ-
   space, does not guarantee that the R-LFA alternate path via the same,
   in entirety, is unaffected in the event of a node failure of primary
   nexthop node E.  It only guarantees that the path segment from S to
   PQ-node Y is unaffected by the same failure event.  The PQ-nodes in
   the candidate node-protecting PQ space may provide node protection
   for only a subset of destinations that are reachable through the
   corresponding primary link.

2.2.6.  Cost-Based Definitions

   This section provides cost-based definitions for some of the terms
   introduced in Section 2.2 of this document.

2.2.6.1.  Link-Protecting Extended P-Space

   Please refer to Section 2.2.1 for a formal definition for Link-
   protecting Extended P-Space.




Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   A node Y is in link-protecting extended P-space w.r.t the link (S-E)
   being protected, if and only if, there exists at least one direct
   neighbor of S, Ni, other than primary nexthop E, that satisfies the
   following condition.

   D_opt(Ni,Y) < D_opt(Ni,S) + D_opt(S,Y)

   Where,
     D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from A to B.
            Ni  : A direct neighbor of S other than primary
                  nexthop E.
             Y  : The node being evaluated for link-protecting
                  extended P-Space.


              Figure 3: Link-Protecting Ext-P-Space Condition

2.2.6.2.  Node-Protecting Extended P-Space

   Please refer to Section 2.2.2 for a formal definition for Node-
   protecting Extended P-Space.

   A node Y is in node-protecting extended P-space w.r.t the node E
   being protected, if and only if, there exists at least one direct
   neighbor of S, Ni, other than primary nexthop E, that satisfies the
   following condition.


   D_opt(Ni,Y) < D_opt(Ni,E) + D_opt(E,Y)

   Where,
     D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from A to B.
             E  : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S
                  to destination.
             Ni : A direct neighbor of S other than primary
                  nexthop E.
              Y : The node being evaluated for node-protecting
                  extended P-Space.


              Figure 4: Node-Protecting Ext-P-Space Condition

   Please note, that a node Y satisfying the condition in Figure 4 above
   only guarantees that the R-LFA alternate path segment from S via
   direct neighbor Ni to the node Y is not affected in the event of a
   node failure of E.  It does not yet guarantee that the path segment
   from node Y to the destination is also unaffected by the same failure
   event.



Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


2.2.6.3.  Q-Space

   Please refer to Section 2.2.3 for a formal definition for Q-Space.

   A node Y is in Q-space w.r.t the link (S-E) being protected, if and
   only if, the following condition is satisfied.

   D_opt(Y,E) < D_opt(S,E) + D_opt(Y,S)

   Where,
     D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from A to B.
             E  : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S
                  to destination.
             Y  : The node being evaluated for Q-Space.


                        Figure 5: Q-Space Condition

2.3.  Computing Node-protecting R-LFA Path

   The R-LFA alternate path through a given PQ-node to a given
   destination is comprised of two path segments as follows.

   1.  Path segment from the computing router to the PQ-node (Remote-LFA
       alternate nexthop), and

   2.  Path segment from the PQ-node to the destination being protected.

   So to ensure a R-LFA alternate path for a given destination provides
   node-protection we need to ensure that none of the above path
   segments are affected in the event of failure of the primary nexthop
   node.  Sections Section 2.3.1 and Section 2.3.2 show how this can be
   ensured.

2.3.1.  Computing Candidate Node-protecting PQ-Nodes for Primary
        nexthops

   To choose a node-protecting R-LFA nexthop for a destination R3,
   router S needs to consider a PQ-node from the candidate node-
   protecting PQ-space for the primary nexthop E on shortest path from S
   to R3.  As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, to consider a PQ-node as
   candidate node-protecting PQ-node, there must be at least one direct
   neighbor Ni of S, such that all shortest paths from Ni to the PQ-node
   does not traverse primary nexthop node E.

   Implementations SHOULD run the inequality in Section 2.2.2 Figure 4
   for all direct neighbors, other than primary nexthop node E, to
   determine whether a node Y is a candidate node-protecting PQ-node.



Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   All of the metrics needed by this inequality would have been already
   collected from the forward SPFs rooted at each of direct neighbor S,
   computed as part of standard LFA [RFC5286] implementation.  With
   reference to the topology in Figure 2, Table 3 below shows how the
   above condition can be used to determine the candidate node-
   protecting PQ-space for S-E link (primary nexthop E).

   +------------+----------+----------+----------+---------+-----------+
   | Candidate  |  Direct  |  D_opt   |  D_opt   |  D_opt  | Condition |
   |  PQ-node   | Nbr (Ni) |  (Ni,Y)  |  (Ni,E)  |  (E,Y)  |    Met    |
   |    (Y)     |          |          |          |         |           |
   +------------+----------+----------+----------+---------+-----------+
   |     R2     |    N     | 2 (N,R2) | 1 (N,E)  |    2    |    Yes    |
   |            |          |          |          |  (E,R2) |           |
   |     R3     |    N     | 2 (N,R3) | 1 (N,E)  |    1    |     No    |
   |            |          |          |          |  (E,R3) |           |
   +------------+----------+----------+----------+---------+-----------+

    Table 3: Node-protection evaluation for R-LFA repair tunnel to PQ-
                                   node

   As seen in the above Table 3, R3 does not meet the node-protecting
   extended-p-space inequality and so, while R2 is in candidate node-
   protecting PQ space, R3 is not.

   Some SPF implementations may also produce a list of links and nodes
   traversed on the shortest path(s) from a given root to others.  In
   such implementations, router S may have executed a forward SPF with
   each of its direct neighbors as the SPF root, executed as part of the
   standard LFA [RFC5286] computations.  So S may re-use the list of
   links and nodes collected from the same SPF computations, to decide
   whether a node Y is a candidate node-protecting PQ-node or not.  A
   node Y shall be considered as a node-protecting PQ-node, if and only
   if, there is at least one direct neighbor of S, other than the
   primary nexthop E, for which, the primary nexthop node E does not
   exist on the list of nodes traversed on any of the shortest paths
   from the direct neighbor to the PQ-node.  Table 4 below is an
   illustration of the mechanism with the topology in Figure 2.













Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   +-----------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   | Candidate | Repair Tunnel     | Link-Protection | Node-Protection |
   | PQ-node   | Path(Repairing    |                 |                 |
   |           | router to PQ-     |                 |                 |
   |           | node)             |                 |                 |
   +-----------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   | R2        | S->N->R1->R2      | Yes             | Yes             |
   | R2        | S->E->R3->R2      | No              | No              |
   | R3        | S->N->E->R3       | Yes             | No              |
   +-----------+-------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

          Table 4: Protection of Remote-LFA tunnel to the PQ-node

   As seen in the above Table 4 while R2 is candidate node-protecting
   Remote-LFA nexthop for R3 and D2, it is not so for E and D1, since
   the primary nexthop E is in the shortest path from R2 to E and D1.

2.3.2.  Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to destinations

   Once a computing router finds all the candidate node-protecting PQ-
   nodes for a given directly attached primary link, it shall follow the
   procedure as proposed in this section, to choose one or more node-
   protecting R-LFA paths, for destinations reachable through the same
   primary link in the primary SPF graph.

   To find a node-protecting R-LFA path for a given destination, the
   computing router needs to pick a subset of PQ-nodes from the
   candidate node-protecting PQ-space for the corresponding primary
   nexthop, such that all the path(s) from the PQ-node(s) to the given
   destination remain unaffected in the event of a node failure of the
   primary nexthop node.  To determine whether a given PQ-node belongs
   to such a subset of PQ-nodes, the computing router MUST ensure that
   none of the primary nexthop node are found on any of the shortest
   paths from the PQ-node to the given destination.

   This document proposes an additional forward SPF computation for each
   of the PQ-nodes, to discover all shortest paths from the PQ-nodes to
   the destination.  This will help determine, if a given primary
   nexthop node is on the shortest paths from the PQ-node to the given
   destination or not.  To determine if a given candidate node-
   protecting PQ-node provides node-protecting alternate for a given
   destination, or not, all the shortest paths from the PQ-node to the
   given destination has to be inspected, to check if the primary
   nexthop node is found on any of these shortest paths.  To compute all
   the shortest paths from a candidate node-protecting PQ-node to one
   (or more) destination, the computing router MUST run the forward SPF
   on the candidate node-protecting PQ-node.  Soon after running the
   forward SPF, the computer router SHOULD run the inequality in



Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   Figure 6 below, once for each destination.  A PQ-node that does not
   qualify the condition for a given destination, does not guarantee
   node-protection for the path segment from the PQ-node to the specific
   destination.

   D_opt(Y,D) < D_opt(Y,E) + Distance_opt(E,D)

   Where,
     D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from A to B.
             D  : The destination node.
             E  : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S
                  to destination.
             Y  : The node-protecting PQ-node being evaluated

      Figure 6: Node-Protecting Condition for PQ-node to Destination

   All of the above metric costs except D_opt(Y, D), can be obtained
   with forward and reverse SPFs with E(the primary nexthop) as the
   root, run as part of the regular LFA and Remote-LFA implementation.
   The Distance_opt(Y, D) metric can only be determined by the
   additional forward SPF run with PQ-node Y as the root.  With
   reference to the topology in Figure 2, Table 5 below shows how the
   above condition can be used to determine node-protection with node-
   protecting PQ-node R2.

   +-------------+------------+---------+--------+---------+-----------+
   | Destination | Primary-NH |  D_opt  | D_opt  |  D_opt  | Condition |
   |     (D)     |    (E)     |  (Y, D) | (Y, E) |  (E, D) |    Met    |
   +-------------+------------+---------+--------+---------+-----------+
   |      R3     |     E      |    1    |   2    |    1    |    Yes    |
   |             |            | (R2,R3) | (R2,E) |  (E,R3) |           |
   |      E      |     E      |    2    |   2    | 0 (E,E) |     No    |
   |             |            |  (R2,E) | (R2,E) |         |           |
   |      D1     |     E      |    3    |   2    |    1    |     No    |
   |             |            | (R2,D1) | (R2,E) |  (E,D1) |           |
   |      D2     |     E      |    2    |   2    |    1    |    Yes    |
   |             |            | (R2,D2) | (R2,E) |  (E,D2) |           |
   +-------------+------------+---------+--------+---------+-----------+

    Table 5: Node-protection evaluation for R-LFA path segment between
                          PQ-node and destination

   As seen in the above example above, R2 does not meet the node-
   protecting inequality for destination E, and D1.  And so, once again,
   while R2 is a node-protecting Remote-LFA nexthop for R3 and D2, it is
   not so for E and D1.





Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   In SPF implementations that also produce a list of links and nodes
   traversed on the shortest path(s) from a given root to others, the
   inequality in Figure 6 above need not be evaluated.  Instead, to
   determine whether a PQ-node provides node-protection for a given
   destination or not, the list of nodes computed from forward SPF run
   on the PQ-node, for the given destination, SHOULD be inspected.  In
   case the list contains the primary nexthop node, the PQ-node does not
   provide node-protection.  Else, the PQ-node guarantees node-
   protecting alternate for the given destination.  Below is an
   illustration of the mechanism with candidate node-protecting PQ-node
   R2 in the topology in Figure 2.

   +-------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   | Destination | Shortest Path   | Link-Protection | Node-Protection |
   |             | (Repairing      |                 |                 |
   |             | router to PQ-   |                 |                 |
   |             | node)           |                 |                 |
   +-------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   | R3          | R2->R3          | Yes             | Yes             |
   | E           | R2->R3->E       | Yes             | No              |
   | D1          | R2->R3->E->D1   | Yes             | No              |
   | D2          | R2->R3->D2      | Yes             | Yes             |
   +-------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

        Table 6: Protection of Remote-LFA path between PQ-node and
                                destination

   As seen in the above example while R2 is candidate node-protecting
   R-LFA nexthop for R3 and D2, it is not so for E and D1, since the
   primary nexthop E is in the shortest path from R2 to E and D1.

   The procedure described in this document helps no more than to
   determine whether a given Remote-LFA alternate provides node-
   protection for a given destination or not.  It does not find out any
   new Remote-LFA alternate nexthops, outside the ones already computed
   by standard Remote-LFA procedure.  However, in case of availability
   of more than one PQ-node (Remote-LFA alternates) for a destination,
   and node-protection is required for the given primary nexthop, this
   procedure will eliminate the PQ-nodes that do not provide node-
   protection and choose only the ones that does.

2.3.3.  Computing Node-Protecting R-LFA Paths for Destinations with ECMP
        primary nexthop nodes

   In certain scenarios, when one or more destinations maybe reachable
   via multiple ECMP (equal-cost-multi-path) nexthop nodes, and only
   link-protection is required, there is no need to compute any
   alternate paths for such destinations.  In the event of failure of



Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   one of the nexthop links, the remaining primary nexthops shall always
   provide link-protection.  However, if node-protection is required,
   the rest of the primary nexthops may not guarantee node-protection.
   Figure 7 below shows one such example topology.


                                    D1
                              2    /
                          S---x---E1
                         / \     / \
                        /   x   /   \
                       /     \ /     \
                      N-------E2      R3--D2
                       \  2          /
                        \           /
                         \         /
                         R1-------R2
                              2

   Primary Nexthops:
     Destination D1 = [{ S-E1, E1}, {S-E2, E2}]
     Destination D2 = [{ S-E1, E1}, {S-E2, E2}]

          Figure 7: Topology with multiple ECMP primary nexthops

   In the above example topology, costs of all links are 1, except the
   following links:

      Link: S-E1, Cost: 2

      Link: N-E2: Cost: 2

      Link: R1-R2: Cost: 2

   In the above topology, on computing router S, destinations D1 and D2
   are reachable via two ECMP nexthop nodes E1 and E2.  However the
   primary paths via nexthop node E2 also traverses via the nexthop node
   E1.  So in the event of node failure of nexthop node E1, both primary
   paths (via E1 and E2) becomes unavailable.  Hence if node-protection
   is desired for destinations D1 and D2, alternate paths that does not
   traverse any of the primary nexthop nodes E1 and E2, need to be
   computed.  In the above topology the only alternate neighbor N does
   not provide such a LFA alternate path.  Hence one (or more) R-LFA
   node-protecting alternate paths for destinations D1 and D2, needs to
   be computed.

   In the above topology, following are the link-protecting PQ-nodes.




Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


      Primary Nexthop: E1, Link-Protecting PQ-Node: { R2 }

      Primary Nexthop: E2, Link-Protecting PQ-Node: { R2 }

   To find one (or more) node-protecting R-LFA paths for destinations D1
   and D2, one (or more) node-protecting PQ-node(s) needs to be
   determined first.  Inequalities specified in Section 2.2.6.2 and
   Section 2.2.6.3 can be evaluated to compute the node-protecting PQ-
   space for each of the nexthop nodes E1 and E2, as shown in Table 7
   below.  To select a PQ-node as node-protecting PQ-node for a
   destination with multiple primary nexthop nodes, the PQ-node MUST
   satisfy the inequality for all primary nexthop nodes.  Any PQ-node
   which is NOT node-protecting PQ-node for all the primary nexthop
   nodes, MUST NOT be chosen as the node-protecting PQ-node for
   destination.

   +--------+----------+-------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+
   | Primar | Candidat | Direc | D_opt  | D_opt  |  D_opt  | Condition |
   | y Next |  e PQ-   | t Nbr | (Ni,Y) | (Ni,E) |  (E,Y)  |    Met    |
   |  hop   | node (Y) |  (Ni) |        |        |         |           |
   |  (E)   |          |       |        |        |         |           |
   +--------+----------+-------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+
   |   E1   |    R2    |   N   |   3    |   3    |    2    |    Yes    |
   |        |          |       | (N,R2) | (N,E1) | (E1,R2) |           |
   |   E2   |    R2    |   N   |   3    |   2    |    3    |    Yes    |
   |        |          |       | (N,R2) | (N,E2) | (E2,R2) |           |
   +--------+----------+-------+--------+--------+---------+-----------+

     Table 7: Computing Node-protected PQ-nodes for nexthop E1 and E2

   In SPF implementations that also produce a list of links and nodes
   traversed on the shortest path(s) from a given root to others, the
   tunnel-repair paths from the computing router to candidate PQ-node
   can be examined to ensure that none of the primary nexthop nodes is
   traversed.  PQ-nodes that provide one (or more) Tunnel-repair
   paths(s) that does not traverse any of the primary nexthop nodes, are
   to be considered as node-protecting PQ-nodes.  Table 8 below shows
   the possible tunnel-repair paths to PQ-node R2.

   +--------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
   |  Primary-NH  |  PQ-Node   |   Tunnel-Repair   |    Exclude All    |
   |     (E)      |    (Y)     |       Paths       |     Primary-NH    |
   +--------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
   |    E1, E2    |     R2     |  S==>N==>R1==>R2  |        Yes        |
   +--------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+

                Table 8: Tunnel-Repair paths to PQ-node R2




Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   From Table 7 and Table 8, in the above example, R2 being node-
   protecting PQ-node for both primary nexthops E1 and E2, should be
   chosen as the node-protecting PQ-node for destinations D1 and D2 that
   are both reachable via primary nexthop nodes E1 and E2.

   Next, to find a node-protecting R-LFA path from node-protecting PQ-
   node to destinations D1 and D2, inequalities specified in Figure 6
   should be evaluated, to ensure if R2 provides a node-protecting R-LFA
   path for each of these destinations, as shown below in Table 9.  For
   a R-LFA path to qualify as node-protecting R-LFA path for a
   destination with multiple ECMP primary nexthop nodes, the R-LFA path
   from the PQ-node to the destination MUST satisfy the inequality for
   all primary nexthop nodes.

   +----------+----------+-------+--------+--------+--------+----------+
   | Destinat | Primary- |  PQ-  | D_opt  | D_opt  | D_opt  | Conditio |
   | ion (D)  |  NH (E)  |  Node | (Y, D) | (Y, E) | (E, D) |  n Met   |
   |          |          |  (Y)  |        |        |        |          |
   +----------+----------+-------+--------+--------+--------+----------+
   |    D1    |    E1    |   R2  | 3 (R2, | 2 (R2, | 1 (E1, |    No    |
   |          |          |       |  D1)   |  E1)   |  D1)   |          |
   |    D1    |    E2    |   R2  | 3 (R2, | 3 (R2, | 2 (E2, |   Yes    |
   |          |          |       |  D1)   |  E2)   |  D1)   |          |
   |    D2    |    E1    |   R2  | 2 (R2, | 2 (R2, | 2 (E1, |   Yes    |
   |          |          |       |  D2)   |  E1)   |  D2)   |          |
   |    D2    |    E2    |   R2  | 2 (R2, | 2 (R2, | 3 (E2, |   Yes    |
   |          |          |       |  D2)   |  E2)   |  D2)   |          |
   +----------+----------+-------+--------+--------+--------+----------+

    Table 9: Finding node-protecting R-LFA path for destinations D1 and
                                    D2

   In SPF implementations that also produce a list of links and nodes
   traversed on the shortest path(s) from a given root to others, the
   R-LFA paths via node-protecting PQ-node to final destination can be
   examined to ensure that none of the primary nexthop nodes is
   traversed.  R-LFA path(s) that does not traverse any of the primary
   nexthop nodes, guarantees node-protection in the event of failure of
   any of the primary nexthop nodes.  Table 10 below shows the possible
   R-LFA-paths for destinations D1 and D2 via the node-protecting PQ-
   node R2.










Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   +-------------+------------+---------+-----------------+------------+
   | Destination | Primary-NH | PQ-Node |   R-LFA Paths   |  Exclude   |
   |     (D)     |    (E)     |   (Y)   |                 |    All     |
   |             |            |         |                 | Primary-NH |
   +-------------+------------+---------+-----------------+------------+
   |      D1     |   E1, E2   |    R2   | S==>N==>R1==>R2 |     No     |
   |             |            |         | -->R3-->E1-->D1 |            |
   |             |            |         |                 |            |
   |      D2     |   E1, E2   |    R2   | S==>N==>R1==>R2 |    Yes     |
   |             |            |         |    -->R3-->D2   |            |
   +-------------+------------+---------+-----------------+------------+

             Table 10: R-LFA paths for destinations D1 and D2

   From Table 9 and Table 10, in the example above, the R-LFA path from
   R2 does not meet the node-protecting inequality for destination D1,
   while it does meet the same inequality for destination D2.  And so,
   while R2 provides node-protecting R-LFA alternate for D2, it fails to
   provide node-protection for destination D1.  Finally, while it is
   possible to get a node-protecting R-LFA path for D2, no such node-
   protecting R-LFA path can be found for D1.

2.3.4.  Limiting extra computational overhead

   In addition to the extra reverse SPF computations suggested by the
   Remote-LFA [RFC7490] draft (one reverse SPF for each of the directly
   connected neighbors), this document proposes a forward SPF
   computations for each PQ-node discovered in the network.  Since the
   average number of PQ-nodes found in any network is considerably more
   than the number of direct neighbors of the computing router, the
   proposal of running one forward SPF per PQ-node may add considerably
   to the overall SPF computation time.

   To limit the computational overhead of the approach proposed, this
   document specifies that implementations MUST choose a subset from the
   entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit
   on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset.  Implementations MUST choose
   a default value for this limit and may provide user with a
   configuration knob to override the default limit.  This document
   suggests 16 as a default value for this limit.  Implementations MUST
   also evaluate some default preference criteria while considering a
   PQ-node in this subset.  The exact default preference criteria to be
   used is outside the scope of this document, and is a matter of
   implementation.  Finally, implementations MAY also allow the user to
   override the default preference criteria, by providing a policy
   configuration for the same.





Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   This document proposes that implementations SHOULD use a default
   preference criteria for PQ-node selection which will put a score on
   each PQ-node, proportional to the number of primary interfaces for
   which it provides coverage, its distance from the computing router,
   and its router-id (or system-id in case of IS-IS).  PQ-nodes that
   cover more primary interfaces SHOULD be preferred over PQ-nodes that
   cover fewer primary interfaces.  When two or more PQ-nodes cover the
   same number of primary interfaces, PQ-nodes which are closer (based
   on metric) to the computing router SHOULD be preferred over PQ-nodes
   farther away from it.  For PQ-nodes that cover the same number of
   primary interfaces and are the same distance from the computing
   router, the PQ-node with smaller router-id (or system-id in case of
   IS-IS) SHOULD be preferred.

   Once a subset of PQ-nodes is found, computing router shall run a
   forward SPF on each of the PQ-nodes in the subset to continue with
   procedures proposed in Section 2.3.2.

3.  Manageability of Remote-LFA Alternate Paths

3.1.  The Problem

   With the regular Remote-LFA [RFC7490] functionality the computing
   router may compute more than one PQ-node as usable Remote-LFA
   alternate nexthops.  Additionally [RFC7916] specifies a LFA (and
   Remote-LFA) manageability framework, in which an alternate selection
   policy may be configured to let the network operator choose one of
   them as the most appropriate Remote-LFA alternate.  For such policy-
   based alternate selection to run, the computing router needs to
   collect all the relevant path characteristics (as specified in
   section 6.2.4 of [RFC7916]) for each of the alternate paths (one
   through each of the PQ-nodes).  As mentioned before in Section 2.3
   the R-LFA alternate path through a given PQ-node to a given
   destination is comprised of two path segments.  Section 6.2.5.4 of
   [RFC7916] specifies that any kind of alternate selection policy must
   consider path characteristics for both path segments while evaluating
   one or more RLFA alternate path(s).

   The first path segment (i.e. from the computing router to the PQ-
   node) can be calculated from the regular forward SPF done as part of
   standard and remote LFA computations.  However without the mechanism
   proposed in Section 2.3.2 of this document, there is no way to
   determine the path characteristics for the second path segment (i.e.
   from the PQ-node to the destination).  In the absence of the path
   characteristics for the second path segment, two Remote-LFA alternate
   paths may be equally preferred based on the first path segments
   characteristics only, although the second path segment attributes may
   be different.



Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


3.2.  The Solution

   The additional forward SPF computation proposed in Section 2.3.2
   document shall also collect links, nodes and path characteristics
   along the second path segment.  This shall enable collection of
   complete path characteristics for a given Remote-LFA alternate path
   to a given destination.  The complete alternate path characteristics
   shall then facilitate more accurate alternate path selection while
   running the alternate selection policy.

   As already specified in Section 2.3.4 to limit the computational
   overhead of the proposed approach, forward SPF computations must be
   run on a selected subset from the entire set of PQ-nodes computed in
   the network, with a finite limit on the number of PQ-nodes in the
   subset.  The detailed suggestion on how to select this subset is
   specified in the same section.  While this limits the number of
   possible alternate paths provided to the alternate-selection policy,
   this is needed to keep the computational complexity within affordable
   limits.  However if the alternate-selection policy is very
   restrictive this may leave few destinations in the entire topology
   without protection.  Yet this limitation provides a necessary
   tradeoff between extensive coverage and immense computational
   overhead.

   The mechanism proposed in this section does not modify or invalidate
   [RFC7916] or any parts of it.  This document specifies a mechanism to
   meet the requirements specified in section 6.5.2.4 in [RFC7916].

4.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Bruno Decraene for providing his useful comments.  We
   would also like to thank Uma Chunduri for reviewing this document and
   providing valuable feedback.  Also, many thanks to Harish Raghuveer
   for his review and comments on the initial versions of this document.

5.  IANA Considerations

   N/A. - No protocol changes are proposed in this document.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any change in any of the protocol
   specifications.  It simply proposes to run an extra SPF rooted on
   each PQ-node discovered in the whole network.







Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
              IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.

   [RFC7490]  Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
              So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
              RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7916]  Litkowski, S., Ed., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
              Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational Management of
              Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 7916, DOI 10.17487/RFC7916,
              July 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7916>.

Authors' Addresses

   Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)
   Individual Contributor

   Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com


   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Electra, Exora Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560103
   India

   Email: shraddha@juniper.net










Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability    January 2017


   Chris Bowers
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: cbowers@juniper.net


   Hannes Gredler
   RtBrick, Inc.

   Email: hannes@rtbrick.com


   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
































Sarkar, et al.            Expires July 24, 2017                [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/