draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02.txt   draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-03.txt 
TEAS Working Group A. Wang TEAS Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Experimental X. Huang Intended status: Experimental X. Huang
Expires: April 24, 2019 C. Kou Expires: October 11, 2019 C. Kou
BUPT BUPT
Z. Li Z. Li
China Mobile China Mobile
P. Mi P. Mi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 21, 2018 April 9, 2019
Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP Network Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP Network
draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02 draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the scenarios, simulation and suggestions for This document describes the scenarios, simulation and suggestions for
PCE in native IP network, which integrates the merit of distributed PCE in native IP network, which integrates the merit of distributed
protocols (IGP/BGP), and the power of centrally control technologies protocols (IGP/BGP), and the power of centrally control technologies
(PCE/SDN) to provide one feasible traffic engineering solution in (PCE/SDN) to provide one feasible traffic engineering solution in
various complex scenarios for the service provider. various complex scenarios for the service provider.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. CCDR Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. CCDR Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Qos Assurance for Hybrid Cloud-based Application. . . . . 3 3.1. QoS Assurance for Hybrid Cloud-based Application. . . . . 3
3.2. Link Utilization Maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Link Utilization Maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Traffic Engineering for Multi-Domain . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Traffic Engineering for Multi-Domain . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Network temporal congestion elimination. . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Network Temporal Congestion Elimination. . . . . . . . . 6
4. CCDR Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. CCDR Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Topology Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Topology Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Traffic Matrix Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Traffic Matrix Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. CCDR End-to-End Path Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. CCDR End-to-End Path Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Network Temporal Congestion Elimination . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. Network Temporal Congestion Elimination . . . . . . . . . 9
5. CCDR Deployment Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. CCDR Deployment Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Service provider network is composed mainly thousands of routers that Service provider network is composed thousands of routers that run
run distributed protocol to exchange the reachability information distributed protocol to exchange the reachability information between
between them. The path for the destination network is mainly them. The path for the destination network is mainly calculated and
calculated and controlled by the IGP/BGP protocols. These controlled by the IGP/BGP protocols. These distributed protocols are
distributed protocols are robust enough to support the current robust enough to support the current evolution of Internet but have
evolution of Internet but have some difficulties when application some difficulties when application requires the end-to-end QoS
requires the end-to-end QoS performance, or in the situation that the performance, or in the situation that the service provider wants to
service provider wants to maximize the links utilization within their maximize the link utilization within their network.
network.
MPLS-TE technology is one solution for finely planned network but it MPLS-TE technology is one solution for finely planned network but it
will put heavy burden on the routers when we use it to meet the will put heavy burden on the routers when we use it to meet the
dynamic QoS assurance requirements within real time traffic network. dynamic QoS assurance requirements within real time traffic network.
SR(Segment Routing) is another solution that integrates some merits SR(Segment Routing) is another solution that integrates some merits
of distributed protocol and the advantages of centrally control mode, of distributed protocol and the advantages of centrally control mode,
but it requires the underlying network, especially the provider edge but it requires the underlying network, especially the provider edge
router to do label push and pop action in-depth, and need complex router to do label push and pop action in-depth, and need complex
mechanics for co-exist with the Non-SR network. Aditionally, it can mechanic for coexisting with the Non-SR network. Additionally, it
only maneuver the end-to-end path for MPLS and IPv6 traffic via can only maneuver the end-to-end path for MPLS and IPv6 traffic via
different mechanisms. different mechanisms.
This draft describes scenarios that the centrally control dynamic This draft describes scenarios that the centrally control dynamic
routing (CCDR) framework can easily solve, without adding more extra routing (CCDR) framework can easily solve, without adding more extra
burdening on the router. It also gives the path optimization burden on the router. It also gives the path optimization simulation
simulation results to illustrate the applicability of CCDR framework. results to illustrate the applicability of CCDR framework. Finally,
Finally, it gives some suggestions for the implementation and it gives some suggestions for the implementation and deployment of
deployment of CCDR. CCDR.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. CCDR Scenarios. 3. CCDR Scenarios.
The following sections describe some scenarios that the CCDR The following sections describe some scenarios that the CCDR
framework is suitable for deployment. framework is suitable for deployment.
3.1. Qos Assurance for Hybrid Cloud-based Application. 3.1. QoS Assurance for Hybrid Cloud-based Application.
With the emerge of cloud computing technologies, enterprises are With the emerge of cloud computing technologies, enterprises are
putting more and more services on the public oriented cloud putting more and more services on the public oriented cloud
environment, but keep core business within their private cloud. The environment, but keep core business within their private cloud. The
communication between the private and public cloud will span the WAN communication between the private and public cloud will span the WAN
network. The bandwidth requirements between them are variable and network. The bandwidth requirements between them are variable and
the background traffic between these two sites changes from time to the background traffic between these two sites changes from time to
time. Enterprise applications just want to exploit the network time. Enterprise applications just want to exploit the network
capabilities to assure the end-to-end QoS performance on demand. capabilities to assure the end-to-end QoS performance on demand.
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 skipping to change at page 4, line 26
Private Cloud Site || Distributed |Public Cloud Site Private Cloud Site || Distributed |Public Cloud Site
| Control Network | | Control Network |
\\\\\ ///// \\\\\ /////
\\--------------// \\--------------//
Fig.1 Hybrid Cloud Communication Scenario Fig.1 Hybrid Cloud Communication Scenario
By default, the traffic path between the private and public cloud By default, the traffic path between the private and public cloud
site will be determined by the distributed control network. When site will be determined by the distributed control network. When
applications require the end-to-end QoS assurance, it can send these applications require the end-to-end QoS assurance, it can send these
requirements to PCE, let PCE compute one e2e path which is based on requirements to PCE,let PCE compute one e2e path which is based on
the underlying network topology and the real traffic information, to the underlying network topology and the real traffic information, to
accommodate the application's QoS requirements. The proposed accommodate the application's QoS requirements. The proposed
solution can refer the draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. solution can refer the draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip].
Section 4 describes the detail simulation process and the result. Section 4 describes the detail simulation process and the result.
3.2. Link Utilization Maximization 3.2. Link Utilization Maximization
Network topology within MAN is generally in star mode as illustrated Network topology within MAN is generally in star mode as illustrated
in Fig.2, with different devices connect different customer types. in Fig.2, with different devices connect different customer types.
The traffic from these customers is often in tidal pattern that the The traffic from these customers is often in tidal pattern that the
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
| | | | | | | |
+--|-+ +-|- +--|-+ +-|+ +--|-+ +-|- +--|-+ +-|+
|BRAS-----SR| |BRAS-----SR| |BRAS-----SR| |BRAS-----SR|
+----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+
Fig.3 Link Utilization Maximization via CCDR Fig.3 Link Utilization Maximization via CCDR
3.3. Traffic Engineering for Multi-Domain 3.3. Traffic Engineering for Multi-Domain
Operator's networks are often comprised by different domains, Operator's networks are often comprised by different domains,
interconnected with each other, form very complex topology that interconnected with each other,form very complex topology that
illustrated in Fig.4. Due to the traffic pattern to/from MAN and illustrated in Fig.4. Due to the traffic pattern to/from MAN and
IDC, the utilization of links between them are often in asymmetric. IDC, the utilization of links between them are often asymmetric. It
It is almost impossible to balance the utilization of these links via is almost impossible to balance the utilization of these links via
the distributed protocol, but this unbalance phenomenon can be the distributed protocol, but this unbalance phenomenon can be
overcome via the CCDR framework. overcome via the CCDR framework.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|MAN|-----------------IDC| |MAN|-----------------IDC|
+-|-| | +-|-+ +-|-| | +-|-+
| ---------| | | ---------| |
------|BackBone|------ ------|BackBone|------
| ----|----| | | ----|----| |
| | | | | |
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
Fig.4 Traffic Engineering for Complex Multi-Domain Topology Fig.4 Traffic Engineering for Complex Multi-Domain Topology
Solution for this scenario requires the gather of NetFlow Solution for this scenario requires the gather of NetFlow
information, analysis the source/destination AS of them and determine information, analysis the source/destination AS of them and determine
which pair is the main cause of the congested link. After this, the which pair is the main cause of the congested link. After this, the
operator can use the multi eBGP sessions described in operator can use the multi eBGP sessions described in
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]to schedule the traffic among different [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]to schedule the traffic among different
domains. domains.
3.4. Network temporal congestion elimination. 3.4. Network Temporal Congestion Elimination.
In more general situation, there are often temporal congestions In more general situation, there are often temporal congestions
within the service provider's network. Such congestion phenomena within the service provider's network. Such congestion phenomena
often appear repeatedly and if the service provider has some methods often appear repeatedly and if the service provider has some methods
to mitigate it, it will certainly increase the degree of satisfaction to mitigate it, it will certainly increase the degree of satisfaction
for their customers. CCDR is also suitable for such scenario in such for their customers. CCDR is also suitable for such scenario in such
manner that the distributed protocol process most of the traffic manner that the distributed protocol process most of the traffic
forwarding and the controller schedule some traffic out of the forwarding and the controller schedule some traffic out of the
congestion links to lower the utilization of them. Section 4 congestion links to lower the utilization of them. Section 4
describes the simulation process and results about such scenario. describes the simulation process and results about such scenario.
skipping to change at page 8, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 10
penalty theory of classical optimization and graph theory. penalty theory of classical optimization and graph theory.
Given background traffic matrix which is unscheduled, when a set of Given background traffic matrix which is unscheduled, when a set of
new flows comes into the network, the end-to-end path optimization new flows comes into the network, the end-to-end path optimization
finds the optimal paths for them. The selected paths bring the least finds the optimal paths for them. The selected paths bring the least
congestion degree to the network. congestion degree to the network.
The link utilization increment degree(UID) when the new flows are The link utilization increment degree(UID) when the new flows are
added into the network is shown in Fig.6. The first graph in Fig.6 added into the network is shown in Fig.6. The first graph in Fig.6
is the UID with OSPF and the second graph is the UID with CCDR end- is the UID with OSPF and the second graph is the UID with CCDR end-
to-end path optimization. The average UID of graph one is more than to-end path optimization. The average UID of the first graph is more
30%. After path optimization, the average UID is less than 5%. The than 30%. After path optimization, the average UID is less than 5%.
results show that the CCDR end-to-end path optimization has an eye- The results show that the CCDR end-to-end path optimization has an
catching decreasing in UID relative to the path chosen based on OSPF. eye-catching decreasing in UID relative to the path chosen based on
OSPF.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------+
| * * * *| | * * * *|
60| * * * * * *| 60| * * * * * *|
|* * ** * * * * * ** * * * * **| |* * ** * * * * * ** * * * * **|
|* * ** * * ** *** ** * * ** * * * ** * * *** **| |* * ** * * ** *** ** * * ** * * * ** * * *** **|
|* * * ** * ** ** *** *** ** **** ** *** **** ** *** **| |* * * ** * ** ** *** *** ** **** ** *** **** ** *** **|
40|* * * ***** ** *** *** *** ** **** ** *** ***** ****** **| 40|* * * ***** ** *** *** *** ** **** ** *** ***** ****** **|
UID(%)|* * ******* ** *** *** ******* **** ** *** ***** *********| UID(%)|* * ******* ** *** *** ******* **** ** *** ***** *********|
|*** ******* ** **** *********** *********** ***************| |*** ******* ** **** *********** *********** ***************|
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 11, line 38
9. Acknowledgement 9. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Deborah Brungard, Adrian Farrel, The author would like to thank Deborah Brungard, Adrian Farrel,
Huaimo Chen, Vishnu Beeram and Lou Berger for their supports and Huaimo Chen, Vishnu Beeram and Lou Berger for their supports and
comments on this draft. comments on this draft.
10. Normative References 10. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., Mi, P., Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
Mallya, R., and S. Peng, "PCE in Native IP Network", "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-01 (work in progress), June ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 35 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/