Link State protocols SPF trigger and delay algorithm impact on IGP micro-loops
draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-10

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (rtgwg WG)
Last updated 2019-02-13 (latest revision 2019-01-16)
Replaces draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Chris Bowers
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2018-05-28)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Martin Vigoureux
Send notices to Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
RFC Editor RFC Editor state RFC-EDITOR
Routing Area Working Group                                  S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft                                   Orange Business Service
Intended status: Informational                               B. Decraene
Expires: July 20, 2019                                            Orange
                                                            M. Horneffer
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                        January 16, 2019

   Link State protocols SPF trigger and delay algorithm impact on IGP
                              micro-loops
               draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-10

Abstract

   A micro-loop is a packet forwarding loop that may occur transiently
   among two or more routers in a hop-by-hop packet forwarding paradigm.

   In this document, we are trying to analyze the impact of using
   different Link State IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) implementations
   in a single network, with respect to micro-loops.  The analysis is
   focused on the SPF (Shortest Path First) delay algorithm.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

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 July 20, 2019.

Litkowski, et al.         Expires July 20, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                 January 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.  Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  SPF trigger strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  SPF delay strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Two steps SPF delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Exponential backoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Mixing strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Benefits of standardized SPF delay behavior . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Link State IGP protocols are based on a topology database on which
   the SPF algorithm is run to find a consistent set of non-looping
   routing paths.

   Specifications like IS-IS ([RFC1195]) propose some optimizations of
   the route computation (See Appendix C.1 of [RFC1195]) but not all the
   implementations follow those non-mandatory optimizations.

   We will call "SPF triggers", the events that would lead to a new SPF
   computation based on the topology.

   Link State IGP protocols, like OSPF ([RFC2328]) and IS-IS
   ([RFC1195]), are using multiple timers to control the router behavior

Litkowski, et al.         Expires July 20, 2019                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                 January 2019
Show full document text