Skip to main content

SR based Loop-free implementation
draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Lijie Deng , Yongqing Zhu , Xuesong Geng , Zhibo Hu
Last updated 2024-10-20
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free-00
Spring Working Group                                             L. Deng
Internet-Draft                                                    Y. Zhu
Intended status: Informational                             China Telecom
Expires: 24 April 2025                                           X. Geng
                                                                   Z. Hu
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                         21 October 2024

                   SR based Loop-free implementation
                    draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free-00

Abstract

   Microloops are brief packet loops that occur in the network following
   a topology change (link down, link up, node fault, or metric change
   events).  Microloops are caused by the non-simultaneous convergence
   of different nodes in the network.  If nodes converge and send
   traffic to a neighbor node that has not converged yet, traffic may be
   looped between these two nodes, resulting in packet loss,jitter, and
   out-of-order packets.  This document presents some optional
   implementation methods aimed at providing loop avoidance in the case
   of IGP network convergence event in different scenarios.

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 24 April 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  nti-Microloop Scheme for Tangent Scenarios  . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Anti-Microloop Scheme for Cut-back Scenarios  . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Anti-Microloop Scheme for Multi-source Scenarios  . . . . . .   6
   6.  Anti-Microloop Scheme for Multi-point Scenarios . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   An IP network computes paths based on the distributed IGP protocols.
   If a node or link fails, a loop may occur on the network because
   LSDBs are not synchronized.  Take the IS-IS/OSPF link-state protocol
   as an example.  Each time the network topology changes, some routers
   need to update the FIB table based on the new topology.  Due to the
   different convergence time and convergence orders, different routers
   may be asynchronous for a short time.  Depending on the capability,
   configuration parameters, and service volume of the device, the
   database may not be synchronized in milliseconds to seconds.  During
   this period, each device on the packet forwarding path may be in the
   pre-convergence state or the post-convergence state.  If the status
   is not synchronized, forwarding routes may be inconsistent and a
   forwarding loop may occur.  However, such a loop disappears after all
   devices on the forwarding path complete convergence.  Such a
   transient loop is called a “microloop”. Microloops may cause packet
   loss, delay variation, and packet disorder on the network.

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

   The Segment Routing defined in [RFC8042] . can be used to cope with
   microloop issue on the network.  When a loop may occur due to a
   network topology change, a network node creates a loop-free segment
   list to direct traffic to the destination address.  After all network
   nodes converge, the network node returns to the normal forwarding
   state.  This effectively eliminates loops on the network.

   [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] describes the basic
   principles of how to use Segment Routing to cope with microloop.
   This document describes some optional implementation methods of SR
   for microloop avoidance in different scenarios.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .

3.  nti-Microloop Scheme for Tangent Scenarios

   Tangent microloops refer to the microloop occured after node/link
   failures.  Along the traffic forwarding path, a loop may occur if a
   node closer to the point of failure converges before a node far from
   the point of failure.  Figure 1 is used as an example to describe the
   tangent microloop occur process: when the link between R3 and R5
   fails, it is assumed that R3 completes convergence first and R2 does
   not complete convergence.  R1 and R2 forward the packet along the
   previous path to R3.  Since R3 has convergenced, it forwarded the
   traffic to R2 according to the route after convergence.  Thus, the
   tangent microloops happened between R2 and R3.

     +----------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                             X  link failure    |
     |                                                                |
     |   +-------+      +-------+       +-------+                     |
     |   |   R1  |------|   R2  |-------|   R3  |                     |
     |   +-------+      +-------+       +-------+                     |
     |                       |               |                        |
     |                       |               X                        |
     |                       |               |                        |
     |                  +-------+       +-------+        +-------+    |
     |                  |   R4  |-------|   R5  |--------|   R6  |    |
     |                  +-------+       +-------+        +-------+    |
     |                                                                |
     |                                                                |
     +----------------------------------------------------------------+
    Figure 1: Tangent illustrative scenario, failure of link R3-R5

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

   SRv6 TI-LFA is deployed in all nodes of the network, and when the
   link between R3 and R5 fails, the convergence process after deploying
   tangent anti-microloop is as follows:

   *  Phase 1: A hold-down timer T1 is configured on R3 which is the
      neighboring node (R3) of the failed node/link and R3 uses TI-LFA
      forwarding for the duration of T1;

   *  Phase 2: A hold-down timer T2 is configured on the remote node and
      the node forwards traffic to R3 (specify the Node Sid of R3) for
      the duration of T2;

   *  Phase 3: T2 timeout, the remote node returns to normal convergence
      firstly;

   *  Phase 4: T1 timeout, R3 reverts back to normal convergence.

   Time T1 must be longer than time T2.  This program is limited to
   single point of failure, the TI-LFA backup path may be affected in
   case of multi-point failure.

4.  Anti-Microloop Scheme for Cut-back Scenarios

   Microloops may occur not only when the node/link fails, but also
   after the failure node/link recovering.  Figure 2 is used as an
   example to introduce the process of the cut-back microloop.

   R1 forwards the traffic to the destination R6 following the path
   R1->R2->R3->R5->R6.  When the link between R2 and R3 fails, R1
   forwards the traffic to the destination R6 following the re-converged
   path R1->R2->R4->R5->R6.  After the failure link between R2 and R3 is
   recovered, assuming that R4 is the first to complete convergence, R1
   forwards the traffic to R2.  Since R2 has not completed convergence,
   the packet is still forwarded to R4 in accordance with the path
   before the the failure link recovering.  R4 has already completed
   convergence, so R4 forwards it to R2 in accordance with the path
   after the the failure link recovering, and the mircoloop occured
   between R2 and R4.

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                            & Link Recovery    |
     |                                                               |
     |   +-------+      +-------+   &   +-------+                    |
     |   |   R1  |------|   R2  |-------|   R3  |                    |
     |   +-------+      +-------+       +-------+                    |
     |                       |               |                       |
     |                       |               |                       |
     |                       |               |                       |
     |                  +-------+       +-------+        +-------+   |
     |                  |   R4  |-------|   R5  |--------|   R6  |   |
     |                  +-------+       +-------+        +-------+   |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    Figure 2: Backcut illustrative scenario, recovery of link R2-R3

   Since the network does not enter the TI-LFA forwarding process after
   the node/link failure is recovered, the delay convergence cannot be
   used in the back-cut scenario to prevent the generation of microloops
   as in the tangent scenario.

   From the above process of back-cut microloop generation, it can be
   seen that microloops happens because R4 is unable to pre-install a
   loop-free path computed for link up.  Therefore, in order to
   eliminate potential loop after the the faulty node/link recovering,
   R4 needs to be able to converge to a loop-free path.

   When the faulty node/link is recovered, the path can be anti-
   microloop by simply specifying Adj-SIDs of the neighbor node.  As
   shown in Figure. 2, R4 senses that the faulty link R2-R3 is recovered
   and re-converges to the destination R6 with the R4->R2->R3->R5->R6
   path.  The recovery of the faulty link R2-R3 does not affect the SR
   path from R4 to R2, so the path from R4 to R2 must be a loop-free
   path.

   Similarly, the path from R3 to R6 is not affected by the recovery of
   the failed R2-R3 link, and the path from R3 to R6 must be loop-free.
   The only thing affected is the path from R2 to R3.  The loop-free
   path from R4 to R6 can be determined by just specifying the path from
   R2 to R3.  So it is only necessary to insert an End.X SID from R2 to
   R3 in the converged path of R4 End. X SID instructs the message to be
   forwarded from R2 to R3, and the path from R4 to R6 is guaranteed to
   be loop-free.

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

5.  Anti-Microloop Scheme for Multi-source Scenarios

   When an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix is advertised by multiple nodes in an IS-
   IS domain, the prefix has multiple route sources, which is called a
   multi-source route.  This section is for the multi-source microloop
   avoidance scenario, which may occur when multiple nodes advertise the
   same route with inconsistent convergence speeds.

   SRv6 multi-source microloop prevention mainly uses SRv6 END.X and END
   SID as the label stack for multi-source microloop prevention.  SR-
   MPLS mainly uses the prefix SID and Adj SID as the label stack for
   multi-source anti-microloop.

   The following example is to describe how microloop happens when
   multiple nodes advertise the same route.

   1.  R3 and R6 both import the route 2001:db8:3::. The link between R2
   and R3 fails.  It is assumed that R2 first completes convergence, and
   R1 hasn’t completed convergence yet.

   2.  R1 forwards the packet to R2 along the path before the failure.

   3.  Because R2 has completed convergence, R2 forwards packets to R1
   according to the next hop of the route.  In this way, a loop is
   formed between R1 and R2.

     +---------------------------------------------------+
     |                                 X  link failure   |
     | 2001:db8:1::    2001:db8:2::      2001:db8:3::    |
     |   +-------+       +-------+        +-------+      |
     |   |   R1  |-------|   R2  |----X---|   R3  |      |
     |   +-------+       +-------+        +-------+      |
     |        |                                          |
     |        |                                          |
     |        |                                          |
     |   +-------+       +-------+        +-------+      |
     |   |   R4  |-------|   R5  |--------|   R6  |      |
     |   +-------+       +-------+        +-------+      |
     | 2001:db8:4::     2001:db8:5::     2001:db8:6::    |
     |                                                   |
     +---------------------------------------------------+
    Figure 3: Multi-source illustrative scenario, failure of link R2-R3

   A possible solution is that: the preferred destination node of the
   packets destined for 2001:db8:3:: changes from R3 to R6, but the
   convergence path from R2 to R5 does not change.  In this case, timer
   T1 on R2 can be started.  Before T1 expires, for a packet that

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

   accesses the R6, an End.X SID between the R5 and the R6 or an End SID
   of the R6 is added to the encapsulation in order to ensure that the
   packet is forwarded to the R6.  A basic principle is similar to that
   of SR-MPLS.

6.  Anti-Microloop Scheme for Multi-point Scenarios

   TBD

7.  Conclusion

   There are various scenarios and different implementation methods for
   loop prevention.  The implementation methods proposed by this
   document based on SR microloop avoidance mechanism can be used for
   subsequent research and development.

8.  Security Considerations

   The behavior described in this document is internal functionality to
   a router that result in the ability to explicitly steer traffic over
   the post convergence path after a remote topology change in a manner
   that guarantees loop freeness.  Because the behavior serves to
   minimize the disruption associated with a topology changes, it can be
   seen as a modest security enhancement.

9.  IANA Considerations

   No requirements for IANA.

10.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank everyone who contributed to the
   draft.

11.  Normative References

   [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop]
              Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B.,
              Francois, P., and P. Psenak, "Loop avoidance using Segment
              Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-17, 29 June 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bashandy-
              rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-17>.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
              Bashandy, A., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
              Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
              Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
              17, 5 July 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-17>.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths]
              Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
              "Segment Protection for SR-TE Paths", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-
              te-paths-07, 1 October 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
              segment-protection-sr-te-paths-07>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8042]  Zhang, Z., Wang, L., and A. Lindem, "OSPF Two-Part
              Metric", RFC 8042, DOI 10.17487/RFC8042, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8042>.

Authors' Addresses

   Lijie Deng
   China Telecom
   109, West Zhongshan Road, Tianhe District
   Guangzhou
   Guangzhou, 510000
   China
   Email: denglj4@chinatelecom.cn

   Yongqing Zhu
   China Telecom
   109, West Zhongshan Road, Tianhe District
   Guangzhou
   Guangzhou, 510000
   China
   Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn

   Xuesong Geng
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
   Beijing
   Beijing, 100095
   China
   Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        draft-deng-rtgwg-sr-loop-free         October 2024

   Zhibo Hu
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
   Beijing
   Beijing, 100095
   China
   Email: huzhibo@huawei.com

Deng, et al.              Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 9]