Interconnecting Millions of Endpoints with Segment Routing
draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-13
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8604.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Gaurav Dawra , Wim Henderickx | ||
Last updated | 2019-06-17 (Latest revision 2019-03-05) | ||
RFC stream | Independent Submission | ||
Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
Formats | |||
IETF conflict review | conflict-review-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect | ||
Stream | ISE state | Published RFC | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Document shepherd | Eliot Lear | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2018-09-16 | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8604 (Informational) | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | "Martin Vigoureux" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-13
Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Previdi Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: September 6, 2019 G. Dawra, Ed. LinkedIn W. Henderickx Nokia D. Cooper Level 3 March 5, 2019 Interconnecting Millions Of Endpoints With Segment Routing draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-13 Abstract This document describes an application of Segment Routing to scale the network to support hundreds of thousands of network nodes, and tens of millions of physical underlay endpoints. This use-case can be applied to the interconnection of massive-scale DCs and/or large aggregation networks. Forwarding tables of midpoint and leaf nodes only require a few tens of thousands of entries. This may be achieved by inherert scaleable nature of Segment Routing and designed proposed in this document. 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 September 6, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Reference Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Illustration of the scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Design Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Segment Routing Global Block(SRGB) Size . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Redistribution of Agg nodes routes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3. Sizing and hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.4. Local Segments to Hosts/Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.5. Compressed SRTE policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Simplified operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Inter-domain SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.3. Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.4. ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction This document describes how SR can be used to interconnect millions of endpoints.The following terminology is used in this document: 2. Terminology The following terms and abbreviations are used in this document: Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 Term Definition --------------------------------------------------------- Agg Aggregation BGP Border Gateway Protocol DC Data Center DCI Data Center Interconnect ECMP Equal Cost MultiPathing FIB Forwarding Information Base LDP Label Distribution Protocol LFIB Label Forwarding Information Base MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching PCE Path Computation Element PCEP Path Computation Element Protocol PW Pseudowire SLA Service level Agreement SR Segment Routing SRTE Policy Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Policy TE Traffic Engineering TI-LFA Topology Independent - Loop Free Alternative 3. Reference Design The network diagram here below describes the reference network topology used in this document: +-------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+ +-------+ A DCI1 Agg1 Agg3 DCI3 Z | DC1 | | M1 | | C | | M2 | | DC2 | | DCI2 Agg2 Agg4 DCI4 | +-------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+ +-------+ Figure 1: Reference Topology The following applies to the reference topology above: Independent ISIS-OSPF/SR instance in core (C) region. Independent ISIS-OSPF/SR instance in Metro1 (M1) region. Independent ISIS-OSPF/SR instance in Metro2 (M2) region. BGP/SR in DC1. BGP/SR in DC2. Agg routes (Agg1, Agg2, Agg3, Agg4) are redistributed from C to M (M1 and M2) and from M to DC domains. Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 No other route is advertised or redistributed between regions. The same homogeneous SRGB is used throughout the domains (e.g. 16000-23999). Unique SRGB sub-ranges are allocated to each metro (M) and core (C) domains: 16000-16999 range is allocated to the core (C) domain/region. 17000-17999 range is allocated to the M1 domain/region. 18000-18999 range is allocated to the M2 domain/region. Specifically, Agg1 router has SID 16001 allocated and Agg2 router has SID 16002 allocated. Specifically, Agg3 router has SID 16003 allocated and the anycast SID for Agg3 and Agg4 is 16006. Specifically, DCI3 router has SID 18003 allocated and the anycast SID for DCI3 and DCI4 is 18006. Specifically, at Agg1 router Binding SID 4001 leads to DCI Pair DCI3, DCI4 via specific low-latency path {16002, 16003, 18006}. The same SRGB sub-range is re-used within each DC (DC1 and DC2) region. for each DC: e.g. 20000-23999. Specifically, nodes A and Z both have SID 20001 allocated to them. 4. Control Plane This section provides a high-level description of a how a control plane could be implemented using protocol components already defined in other RFCs. The mechanism through which SRTE Policies are defined, computed and programmed in the source nodes, are outside the scope of this document. Typically, a controller or a service orchestration system programs node A with a pseudowire (PW) to a remote next-hop Z with a given SLA contract (e.g. low-latency path, be disjoint from a specific core plane, be disjoint from a different PW service, etc.). Node A automatically detects that it does not have reachability to Z. It then automatically sends a PCEP request to an SR PCE for an SRTE policy that provides reachability to Z with the requested SLA. Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 The SR PCE [RFC4655] is made of two components. A multi-domain topology and a computation engine. The multi-domain topology is continuously refreshed through BGP-LS [RFC7752] feeds from each domain. The computing engine is desined to implemet Traffic Engineering (TE) algorithms and provide output in SR Path format. Upon receiving the PCEP [RFC5440] request, the SR PCE computes the requested path. The path is expressed through a list of segments (e.g. {16003, 18006, 20001} and provided to node A. The SR PCE logs the request as a stateful query and hence is capable to recompute the path at each network topology change. Node A receives the PCEP reply with the path (expressed as a segment list). Node A installs the received SRTE policy in the dataplane. Node A then automatically steers the PW into that SRTE policy. 5. Illustration of the scale According to the reference topology described in Figure 1 the following assumptions are made: There's 1 core domain and 100 leaf (metro) domains. The core domain includes 200 nodes. Two nodes connect each leaf (metro) domain. Each node connecting a leaf domain has a SID allocated. Each pair of nodes connecting a leaf domain also has a common anycast SID. This brings up to 300 prefix segments in total. A core node connects only one leaf domain. Each leaf domain has 6000 leaf node segments. Each leaf-node has 500 endpoints attached, thus 500 adjacency segments. In total, it is 3 millions endpoints for a leaf domain. Based on the above, the network scaling numbers are as follows: 6,000 leaf node segments multiplied by 100 leaf domains: 600,000 nodes. 600,000 nodes multiplied by 500 endpoints: 300 millions of endpoints. The node scaling numbers are as follows: Leaf node segment scale: 6,000 leaf node segments + 300 core node segments + 500 adjacency segments = 6,800 segments Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 Core node segment scale: 6,000 leaf domain segments + 300 core domain segments = 6,300 segments In the above calculations, the link adjacency segments are not taken into account. These are local segments and, typically, less than 100 per node. It has to be noted that, depending on leaf node FIB capabilities, leaf domains could be split into multiple smaller domains. In the above example, the leaf domains could be split into 6 smaller domains so that each leaf node only need to learn 1000 leaf node segments + 300 core node segments + 500 adjacency segments which gives a total of 1,800 segments. 6. Design Options This section describes multiple design options to the illustration of previous section. 6.1. Segment Routing Global Block(SRGB) Size In the simplified illustrations of this document, we picked a small homogeneous SRGB range of 16000-23999. In practice, a large-scale design would use a bigger range such as 16000-80000, or even larger. Larger range provides allocations for various Traffic Engineering applications within a given domain 6.2. Redistribution of Agg nodes routes The operator might choose to not redistribute the Agg nodes routes into the Metro/DC domains. In that case, more segments are required in order to express an inter-domain path. For example, node A would use an SRTE Policy {DCI1, Agg1, Agg3, DCI3, Z} in order to reach Z instead of {Agg3, DCI3, Z} in the reference design. 6.3. Sizing and hierarchy The operator is free to choose among a small number of larger leaf domains, a large number of small leaf domains or a mix of small and large core/leaf domains. The operator is free to use a 2-tier design (Core/Metro) or a 3-tier (Core/Metro/DC). Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 6.4. Local Segments to Hosts/Servers Local segments can be programmed at any leaf node (e.g. node Z) in order to identify locally-attached hosts (or VM's). For example, if node Z has bound a local segment 40001 to a local host ZH1, then node A uses the following SRTE Policy in order to reach that host: {16006, 18006, 20001, 40001}. Such local segment could represent the NID (Network Interface Device) in the context of the SP access network, or VM in the context of the DC network. 6.5. Compressed SRTE policies As an example and according to Section 3, we assume node A can reach node Z (e.g., with a low-latency SLA contract) via the SRTE policy consisting of the path: Agg1, Agg2, Agg3, DCI3/4(anycast), Z. The path is represented by the segment list: {16001, 16002, 16003, 18006, 20001}. It is clear that the control-plane solution can install an SRTE Policy {16002, 16003, 18006} at Agg1, collect the Binding SID allocated by Agg1 to that policy (e.g. 4001) and hence program node A with the compressed SRTE Policy {16001, 4001, 20001}. From node A, 16001 leads to Agg1. Once at Agg1, 4001 leads to the DCI pair (DCI3, DCI4) via a specific low-latency path {16002, 16003, 18006}. Once at that DCI pair, 20001 leads to Z. Binding SID's allocated to "intermediate" SRTE Policies allow to compress end-to-end SRTE Policies. The segment list {16001, 4001, 20001} expresses the same path as {16001, 16002, 16003, 18006, 20001} but with 2 less segments. The Binding SID also provides for an inherent churn protection. When the core topology changes, the control-plane can update the low- latency SRTE Policy from Agg1 to the DCI pair to DC2 without updating the SRTE Policy from A to Z. 7. Deployment Model It is expected that this design be deployed as a green field but as well in interworking (brown field) with MPLS design across multiple domains. Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 8. Benefits The design options illustrated in this document allow the interconnection on a very large scale. Millions of endpoints across different domains can be interconnected. 8.1. Simplified operations Two protocols are not needed in this design: LDP and RSVP-TE. No new protocol has been introduced. The design leverages the core IP protocols: ISIS, OSPF, BGP, PCEP with straightforward SR extensions. 8.2. Inter-domain SLA Fast reroute and resiliency is provided by TI-LFA with sub-50msec FRR upon Link/Node/SRLG failure. TI-LFA is described in [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]. The use of anycast SIDs also provides an improvement in availability and resiliency. Inter-domain SLA's can be delivered, e.g., latency vs. cost optimized path, disjointness from backbone planes, disjointness from other services, disjointness between primary and backup paths. Existing inter-domain solutions do not provide any support for SLA contracts. They just provide a best-effort reachability across domains. 8.3. Scale In addition to having eliminated two control plane protocols, per- service midpoint states have also been removed from the network. 8.4. ECMP Each policy (intra or inter-domain, with or without TE) is expressed as a list of segments. Since each segment is optimized for ECMP, then the entire policy is optimized for ECMP. The ECMP gain of anycast prefix segment should also be considered (e.g. 16001 load- shares across any gateway from M1 leaf domain to Core and 16002 load- shares across any gateway from Core to M1 leaf domain). 9. IANA Considerations This document does not make any IANA request. Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 10. Manageability Considerations This document describes an application of Segment Routing over the MPLS data plane. Segment Routing does not introduce any change in the MPLS data plane. Manageability considerations described in [RFC8402] apply to the MPLS data plane when used with Segment Routing. 11. Security Considerations This document does not introduce additional security requirements and mechanisms other than the ones described in [RFC8402]. 12. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Giles Heron, Alexander Preusche, Steve Braaten and Francis Ferguson for their contribution to the content of this document. 13. Contributors The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of this document: Dennis Cai Individual Tim Laberge Individual Steven Lin Google Inc. Steven Lin Google Inc. Bruno Decraene Orange Luay Jalil Verizon Jeff Tantsura Individual Rob Shakir Google Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 14. Informative References [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Francois, P., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti- lfa-05 (work in progress), October 2018. [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. Authors' Addresses Clarence Filsfils (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Brussels Belgium Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Stefano Previdi Cisco Systems, Inc. Via Del Serafico, 200 Rome 00142 Italy Email: stefano@previdi.net Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Large Scale Segment Routing March 2019 Gaurav Dawra (editor) LinkedIn USA Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com Wim Henderickx Nokia Copernicuslaan 50 Antwerp 2018 Belgium Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Dave Cooper Level 3 Email: Dave.Cooper@Level3.com Filsfils, et al. Expires September 6, 2019 [Page 11]