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

Versions: 00

MBONED WG                                                    G. Shepherd
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                             Z. Zhang, Ed.
Expires: April 28, 2021                                  ZTE Corporation
                                                                  Y. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                Y. Cheng
                                                            China Unicom
                                                        October 25, 2020


              Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover
            draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-00

Abstract

   This document discusses the redundant ingress router failover in
   multicast domain.

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 https://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 28, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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



Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Swichover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Stand-by Modes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Cold  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Warm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Hot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   The multicast redundant ingress router failover is an important issue
   in multicast deployment.  This document tries to do a research on it
   in the multicast domain.  The Multicast Domain is a domain which is
   used to forward multicast flow according to specific multicast
   technologies, such as PIM ([RFC7761]), BIER ([RFC8279]), P2MP TE
   tunnel ([RFC4875]), MLDP ([RFC6388]), etc.  This domain may or may
   not connect the multicast source and receiver directly.

   The ingress router is close to the multicast source.  The ingress
   router may connect the multicast source directly, or there may be
   multiple hops between the ingress router and the multicast source.
   In the multicast domain, the ingress router is the most adjacent
   router to the multicast source.  It's also called the first-hop
   router in PIM, or BFIR in BIER, or Ingress LSR in P2MP TE tunnel or
   MLDP.

   The failover function between the multicast source and the ingress
   router can be achieved by many ways, and it is not included in this
   document.

   The egress router is close to the multicast receiver.  The egress
   router may connect the multicast receiver directly, or there may be
   multiple hops between the egress router and the multicast receiver.
   In the multicast domain, the egress router is the most adjacent
   router to the multicast receiver.  It's also called the last-hop




Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


   router in PIM, or BFER in BIER, or Egress LSR in P2MP TE tunnel or
   MLDP.

   There may be some other function deployed in the multicast domain,
   such as static configuration, or AMT ([RFC7450]), or SR P2MP Policy
   ([I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]).

   This document doesn't discuss the details of these technologies.
   This document discusses the general redundant ingress router failover
   ways in the multicast domain.

2.  Terminology

   The following abbreviations are used in this document:

   IR: the ingress router which is the most close to the multicast
   source in the multicast domain.

   ER: the egress router which is the most close to the multicast
   receiver in the multicast domain.

   SIR: The IR that is in charge of sending the multicast flow, or the
   flow from the IR is accepted by the ERs, the IR is called as the
   Selected-IR, that is SIR in abbreviation.

   BIR: The IR that is not in charge of sending the multicast flow, or
   the flow from the IR is not accepted by the ERs, but the IR replaces
   the role of SIR once SIR fails.  The IR is called as the Backup-IR,
   that is BIR in abbreviation.

3.  Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover




















Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


                                 source
                                  ...
                            +-----+      +-----+
                 +----------+ IR1 +------+ IR2 +---------+
                 |multicast +-----+      +-----+         |
                 |domain            ...                  |
                 |                                       |
                 |          +-----+      +-----+         |
                 |          | Rm  |      | Rn  |         |
                 |          ++---++      +--+--+         |
                 |           |   |          |            |
                 |     +-----+   +---+      +-----+      |
                 |     |             |            |      |
                 |   +-v---+      +--v--+      +--v--+   |
                 +---+ ER1 +------+ ER2 +------+ ER3 +---+
                     +-----+      +-----+      +-----+
                      ...           ...          ...
                    receiver      receiver     receiver
                                 Figure 1

   Usually, a multicast source connects directly, or across multiple
   hops to two IRs to avoid single node failure.  As shown in figure 1,
   there are two IRs close to a multicast source.  The two IRs are UMH
   (Upstream Multicast Hop) candidates for the ERs.

   The two IRs gets multicast flow from the mutlcast source, how to
   forward the multicast flow to ERs is different according to the
   technologies deployed in the multicast domain.  For example, for PIM
   which is used in this domain, two PIM Trees that rooted on the two
   IRs may be built separately.

   The IRs works with the other router, such as the ER, in the multicast
   domain to minimize the multicast flow packet loss during the IR
   swichover.

3.1.  Swichover

   There may be some failures occurs in the domain, such as link
   failure, node failure, if the failed link or node is on the multicast
   flow forwarding path, there may be multicast flow packet loss.

   If there are multiple paths from the IR to the ERs, there is no need
   to switch IR when some nodes or links fail.

   o  When PIM is used in the domain as multicast forwarding protocol,
      the forwarding tree for (S, G) or (*, G) is built in advance.
      When a node or link in the forwarding tree fails, the tree is
      rebuilt partially.



Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


   o  When BIER is used in the domain as multicast forwarding protocol,
      there is no need to rebuilt forwarding tree in case of node or
      link failure, the BIER forwarding recovers along with the IGP
      routing convergence.

   o  When P2MP TE tunnel or MLDP is used in the domain as multicast
      forwarding protocol, the forwarding LSP is built in advance.  When
      a node or link in the LSP fails, the LSP may be rebuilt partially.

   o  When static multicast tree or SR P2MP policy is used in the
      domain, the controller needs to re-compute a new forwarding path
      to bypass the failed node or link.

   In some situations, there are some key nodes or links in the network.
   The multicast path can not be recovered due to the key node or link
   failure.  The IR needs swichover.

                                   source
                                    ...
                            +-----+      +-----+
                 +----------+ IR1 +------+ IR2 +---------+
                 |          +--+--+      +--+--+         |
                 |             |            |            |
                 |          +--+--+      +--+--+         |
                 |          | Rx  |      | Ry  |         |
                 |          +-+-+-+      ++---++         |
                 |            | |         |   |          |
                 |            | +-----------+ |          |
                 |            |           | | |          |
                 |            | +---------+ | |          |
                 |            | |           | |          |
                 |          +-v-v-+      +--v-v+         |
                 |          | Rm  |      | Rn  |         |
                 |          ++---++      +--+--+         |
                 |           |   |          |            |
                 |     +-----+   +---+      +-----+      |
                 |     |             |            |      |
                 |   +-v---+      +--v--+      +--v--+   |
                 +---+ ER1 +------+ ER2 +------+ ER3 +---+
                     +-----+      +-----+      +-----+
                      ...           ...          ...
                    receiver      receiver     receiver
                                 Figure 2

   For example in figure 2, there is only one path in the network
   partially.  The IR1, Rx are key nodes in the domain, when IR1 or Rx
   fails, there is no any other path between the IR1 and the ERs.




Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


   o  When PIM is used in the domain, Rm and Rn may choose Ry as the
      upstream node to send Join message to build a new tree which
      rooted with IR2.

   o  When BIER is used in the domain, IR2 should in charge of the
      forwarding role to forward the flow to the ERs.

   o  When P2MP TE tunnel or MLDP is used in the domain, the LSP may be
      rebuilt partially, or another LSP can be built in advance, and
      replace the used LSP when the used LSP does not work.

   o  When static multicast tree or SR P2MP policy is used in the
      domain, the controller should let the IR2 to forward multicast
      flow to the ERs.

4.  Stand-by Modes

   In case there are more than one IRs can be the UMH, and there is no
   other path from an IR to ERs in case of the IR fails, the IR needs to
   be switched.

   Usually there are three types of stand-by modes in multicast IR
   protection.  [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] has some description
   on it.  This document discusses the detail of the three modes here.

   The ER may send request to upstream router or IR when it finds the
   node or path failure.  The request from the ER may be the PIM tree
   building, or BIER overlay protocol signaling, or LSP building, or
   some other ways to let IR knows whether forwards the multicast flow.

4.1.  Cold

   In cold standby mode, the ER selects an SIR, for example IR1 in
   figure 1, as the SIR and signals to it to get the multicast flow.

   When the ER finds that the SIR is down, or the ER finds that it
   cannot receive flow from IR1, the ER signals to IR2 to get the
   multicast flow.

   o  For IR, the IRs, include SIR and BIR, just do the regular
      operation of forwarding flow according to the request from the ER.

   o  For ER, the ER must select an IR as the SIR and signal to it.
      When the SIR fails or the path between the SIR and ER fails, the
      ER must signal to the BIR to get the flow.






Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


   o  For the intermediate routers, they know nothing about the role of
      IR, they just do the packet forwarding.  There is no duplicate
      packets in the domain.

   In case of the IR switchover, the ER detects the failure of SIR, and
   signals to the BIR.  There is packet loss during the signaling until
   the ER receives the flow from the BIR.

4.2.  Warm

   In Warm standby mode, the ER signals to both IR1 and IR2.

   In case IR1 is the SIR, IR1 forwards the flow to the ER.  The BIR,
   for example the IR2, must not forward the flow to the ER until the
   SIR is down.

   o  For IR, the IR should take the role of SIR or BIR.  The BIR must
      not forward flow to the ER.  When the SIR fails or the path
      between SIR and ER fails, the BIR must start forwarding the flow
      to ER.  But it's hard to know the failure for BIR itself, some
      methods should be taken to let the BIR to get the failure
      notification.

   o  For ER, the ER does not select the SIR or BIR.  The ER just signal
      to both of them.

   o  For the intermediate routers, they know nothing about the role of
      IR, they just do the packet forwarding.  There is no duplicate
      packets in the domain.

   In case of the IR switchover, the BIR detects the failure of the SIR
   and switch to SIR.  There is packet loss during the IR switchover.

4.3.  Hot

   In Hot standby mode, the ER signals to both IRs.

   Both IRs are sending the flow to the ER.  The ER must discard the
   duplicate flow from one of the IRs.

   In this situation, there are no SIR or BIR.  Only ER knows which IR
   is the SIR.

   o  For IR, the IR need not to know the roles of SIR or BIR, IR just
      forwarding the flow according to the request received from ER.

   o  For ER, the ER signal to both of the IRs to get the flow.  And the
      ER must discard the duplicated flow from the backup BIR.  When the



Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


      SIR fails or the path between SIR and ER fails, the ER must switch
      the forwarding plane to forward the flow packet comes from the
      BIR.  To be noted, the ERs may choose different SIR or BIR.

   o  For the intermediate routers, they know nothing about the role of
      IR, they just do the packet forwarding.  There are duplicate
      packets forwarded in the domain.

   In case of the IR switchover, the ER detects the failure of the SIR.
   Because there are duplicate flow packets arrive on the ER, the ER
   just switch to forward the flow comes from the BIR.  There may be
   packet loss during the switching.

4.4.  Summary

   The table is a brief comparison among the three modes.  The 'SIR
   failover' means the SIR fails or the path between SIR and ER fails.


































Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


   +--------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+
   | role         | Cold Mode        | Warm Mode    | Hot Mode         |
   +--------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+
   | IR           | Forwarding flow  | Takes the    | Need not to know |
   |              | according to the | role of SIR  | the roles of SIR |
   |              | request from ER. | or BIR, BIR  | or BIR, just     |
   |              |                  | MUST NOT     | forwarding flow  |
   |              |                  | forward flow | according to the |
   |              |                  | to ER until  | request from ER. |
   |              |                  | SIR          |                  |
   |              |                  | failovers.   |                  |
   |              |                  |              |                  |
   | ER           | Must select an   | Does not     | Signal to both   |
   |              | IR as SIR to     | select the   | of SIR and BIR.  |
   |              | signal the       | SIR or BIR,  | Discards the     |
   |              | request, signal  | just signal  | duplicate flow   |
   |              | to the BIR to    | to both of   | from BIR until   |
   |              | request the flow | them.        | SIR failover.    |
   |              | when SIR         |              |                  |
   |              | failovers.       |              |                  |
   |              |                  |              |                  |
   | Intermediate | Knows nothing    | Knows        | Knows nothing    |
   | Router       | about SIR or     | nothing      | about SIR or     |
   |              | BIR. No          | about SIR or | BIR. Duplicated  |
   |              | duplicated flow  | BIR. No      | flow is          |
   |              | is forwarded.    | duplicated   | forwarded.       |
   |              |                  | flow is      |                  |
   |              |                  | forwarded.   |                  |
   +--------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+

                                  Table 1

   The Cold stand-by mode is the easiest way to implementated, but it
   takes the longest converge time.

   The Hot stand-by mode takes the most less packet loss, but there is
   duplicated packet forwarding in the domain, more bandwidth is
   occupied.

   The Warm stand-by mode takes the middle packet loss and converge
   time, but it's hard for BIR to know the failure between SIR and ERs.

   So it's hard to say which mode is the best way for multicast
   redundant ingress router failover, the network administrator should
   select the most suitable mode according to the network deployment.






Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


5.  Security Considerations

   This document adds no new security considerations.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
              Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
              Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
              Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
              Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
              to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.

   [RFC7450]  Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover]
              Morin, T., Kebler, R., and G. Mirsky, "Multicast VPN Fast
              Upstream Failover", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-11
              (work in progress), October 2020.








Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover  October 2020


   [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
              Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
              Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy",
              draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00 (work in progress), July
              2020.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Shepherd
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose
   US

   Email: gjshep@gmail.com


   Zheng Zhang (editor)
   ZTE Corporation
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn


   Yisong Liu
   China Mobile

   Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com


   Ying Cheng
   China Unicom
   Beijing
   China

   Email: chengying10@chinaunicom.cn














Shepherd, et al.         Expires April 28, 2021                [Page 11]


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