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

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                              X. Xu
Internet-Draft                                               Alibaba Inc
Intended status: Standards Track                                 L. Fang
Expires: October 19, 2018                                   Expedia, Inc
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                          Nuage Networks
                                                                   S. Ma
                                                                 Juniper
                                                          April 17, 2018


                    OSPF Flooding Reduction in MSDC
            draft-xu-lsr-ospf-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00

Abstract

   OSPF is commonly used as an underlay routing protocol for MSDC
   (Massively Scalable Data Center) networks.  For a given OSPF router
   within the CLOS topology, it would receive multiple copies of exactly
   the same LSA from multiple OSPF neighbors.  In addition, two OSPF
   neighbors may send each other the same LSA simultaneously.  The
   unneccessary link-state information flooding wastes the precious
   process resource of OSPF routers greatly due to the fact that there
   are too many OSPF neighbors for each OSPF router within the CLOS
   topology.  This document proposes some extensions to OSPF so as to
   reduce the OSPF flooding within MSDC networks greatly.  The reduction
   of the OSPF flooding is much beneficial to improve the scalability of
   MSDC networks.  These modifications are applicable to both OSPFv2 and
   OSPFv3.

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 RFC 2119 [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 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



Xu, et al.              Expires October 19, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                                April 2018


   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 October 19, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Modifications to Current OSPF Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  OSPF Routers as Non-DRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Controllers as DR/BDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   OSPF is commonly used as an underlay routing protocol for Massively
   Scalable Data Center (MSDC) networks where CLOS is the most popular
   toplogy.  For a given OSPF router within the CLOS topology, it would
   receive multiple copies of exactly the same LSA from multiple OSPF
   neighbors.  In addition, two OSPF neighbors may send each other the
   same LSA simultaneously.  The unnecessary link-state information
   flooding wastes the precious process resource of OSPF routers greatly
   and therefore OSPF could not scale very well in MSDC networks.

   To simplify the network management task, centralized controllers are
   becoming fundamental network elements in most MSDCs.  One or more



Xu, et al.              Expires October 19, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                                April 2018


   controllers are usually connected to all routers within the MSDC
   network via a Local Area Network (LAN) which is dedicated for network
   management purpose (called management LAN), as shown in Figure 1.

           +----------+                  +----------+
           |Controller|                  |Controller|
           +----+-----+                  +-----+----+
                |DR                            |BDR
                |                              |
                |                              |
   ---+---------+---+----------+-----------+---+---------+-Management LAN
      |             |          |           |             |
      |Non-DR       |Non-DR    |Non-DR     |Non-DR       |Non-DR
      |             |          |           |             |
      |         +---+--+       |       +---+--+          |
      |         |Router|       |       |Router|          |
      |         *------*-      |      /*---/--*          |
      |        /     \   --    |    //    /    \         |
      |        /     \     --  |  //      /    \         |
      |       /       \      --|//       /      \        |
      |       /        \      /*-       /        \       |
      |      /          \   // | --    /         \       |
      |      /          \ //   |   --  /          \      |
      |     /           /X     |     --           \      |
      |     /         //  \    |     / --          \     |
      |    /        //    \    |     /   --         \    |
      |    /      //       \   |    /      --       \    |
      |   /     //          \  |   /         --      \   |
      |   /   //             \ |  /            --     \  |
      |  /  //               \ |  /              --   \  |
    +-+- //*                +\\+-/-+               +---\-++
    |Router|                |Router|               |Router|
    +------+                +------+               +------+

                              Figure 1

   With the assistance of controllers acting as OSPF Designated Router
   (DR)/Backup Designated Router (BDR) for the management LAN, OSPF
   routers within the MSDC network don't need to exchange any other
   types of OSPF packet than the OSPF Hello packet among them.  As
   specified in [RFC2328], these Hello packets are used for the purpose
   of establishing and maintaining neighbor relationships and ensuring
   bidirectional communication between OSPF neighbors, and even the DR/
   BDR election purpose in the case where those OSPF routers are
   connected to a broadcast network.  In order to obtain the full
   topology information (i.e., the fully synchronized link-state
   database) of the MSDC's network, these OSPF routers just need to




Xu, et al.              Expires October 19, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                                April 2018


   exchange the link-state information with the controllers being
   elected as OSPF DR/BDR for the management LAN instead.

   To further suppress the flooding of multicast OSPF packets originated
   from OSPF routers over the management LAN, OSPF routers would not
   send multicast OSPF Hello packets over the management LAN.  Insteads,
   they just wait for OSPF Hello packets originated from the controllers
   being elected as OSPF DR/BDR initially.  Once OSPF DR/BDR for the
   management LAN have been discovered, they start to send OSPF Hello
   packets directly (as unicasts) to OSPF DR/BDR periodically.  In
   addition, OSPF routers would send other types of OSPF packets (e.g.,
   Database Descriptor packet, Link State Request packet, Link State
   Update packet, Link State Acknowledgment packet) to OSPF DR/BDR for
   the management LAN as unicasts as well.  In contrast, the controllers
   being elected as OSPF DR/BDR would send OSPF packets as specified in
   [RFC2328].  As a result, OSPF routers would not receive OSPF packets
   from one another unless these OSPF packets are forwarded as unknown
   unicasts over the management LAN.  Through the above modifications to
   the current OSPF router behaviors, the OSPF flooding is greatly
   reduced, which is much beneficial to improve the scalability of MSDC
   networks.  These modifications are applicable to both OSPFv2
   [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].

   Furthermore, the mechanism for OSPF refresh and flooding reduction in
   stable topologies as described in [RFC4136] could be considered as
   well.

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC2328].

3.  Modifications to Current OSPF Behaviors

3.1.  OSPF Routers as Non-DRs

   After the exchange of OSPF Hello packets among OSPF routers, the OSPF
   neighbor relationship among them would transition to and remain in
   the TWO-WAY state.  OSPF routers would originate Router-LSAs and/or
   Network-LSAs accordingly depending upon the link-types.  Note that
   the neighbors in the TWO-WAY state would be advertised in the Router-
   LSAs and/or Network-LSA.  This is a little bit different from the
   OSPF router behavior as specified in [RFC2328] where the neighbors in
   the TWO-WAY state would not be advertised.  However, these self-
   originated LSAs need not to be exchanged directly among them anymore.
   Instead, these LSAs just need to be sent solely to the controllers
   being elected as OSPF DR/BDR for the management LAN.





Xu, et al.              Expires October 19, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                                April 2018


   To further reduce the flood of multicast OSPF packets over the
   management LAN, OSPF routers SHOULD send OSPF packets as unicasts.
   More specifically, OSPF routers SHOULD send unicast OSPF Hello
   packets periodically to the controllers being elected as OSPF DR/BDR.
   In other words, OSPF routers would not send any OSPF Hello packet
   over the management LAN until they have found OSPF DR/BDR for the
   management LAN.  Note that OSPF routers SHOULD NOT be elected as OSPF
   DR/BDR for the management LAN (This is done by setting the Router
   Priority of those OSPF routers to zero).  As a result, OSPF routers
   would not see each other over the management LAN.  Furthermore, OSPF
   routers SHOULD send all other types of OSPF packets than OSPF Hello
   packets (i.e., Database Descriptor packet, Link State Request packet,
   Link State Update packet, Link State Acknowledgment packet) to the
   controllers being elected as OSPF DR/BDR as unicasts as well.

   To avoid the data traffic from being forwarded across the management
   LAN, the cost of all OSPF routers' interfaces to the management LAN
   SHOULD be set to the maximum value.

   When a given OSPF router lost its connection to the management LAN,
   it SHOULD actively establish FULL adjacency with all of its OSPF
   neighbors within the CLOS network.  As such, it could obtain the full
   LSDB of the CLOS network while flooding its self-originated LSAs to
   the remaining part of the whole network.  That's to say, for a given
   OSPF router within the CLOS network, it would not actively establish
   FULL adjacency with its OSPF neighbor in the TWO-WAY state by
   default.  However, it SHOULD NOT refuse to establish FULL adjacency
   with a given OSPF neighbors when receiving Database Description
   Packets from that OSPF neighbor.

3.2.  Controllers as DR/BDR

   The controllers being elected as OSPF DR/BDR would send OSPF packets
   as multicasts or unicasts as per [RFC2328].  In addition, Link State
   Acknowledgment packets are RECOMMENDED to be sent as unicasts rather
   than multicasts if possible.

4.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem for his valuable comments
   and suggestions on this document.

5.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.






Xu, et al.              Expires October 19, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                                April 2018


6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4136]  Pillay-Esnault, P., "OSPF Refresh and Flooding Reduction
              in Stable Topologies", RFC 4136, DOI 10.17487/RFC4136,
              July 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4136>.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiaohu Xu
   Alibaba Inc

   Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com


   Luyuan Fang
   Expedia, Inc

   Email: luyuanf@gmail.com


   Jeff Tantsura
   Nuage Networks

   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com






Xu, et al.              Expires October 19, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                                                April 2018


   Shaowen Ma
   Juniper

   Email: mashao@juniper.net















































Xu, et al.              Expires October 19, 2018                [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/