Internet-Draft BE Multicast Simulation October 2023
Chen, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-chen-pim-be-mrh-simu-02
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
H. Chen
Futurewei
D. Eastlake
Futurewei
M. McBride
Futurewei
Y. Fan
Casa Systems
G. Mishra
Verizon
Y. Liu
China Mobile
A. Wang
China Telecom
X. Liu
IBM Corporation
L. Liu
Fujitsu

Stateless Best Effort Multicast Simulations

Abstract

This document describes simulations of stateless best effort Multicasts and lists a set of simulation results for different large network sizes and different tree sizes.

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 [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 24 April 2024.

1. Introduction

For a tree given by its root/ingress and leaves/egresses, a few of solutions are proposed to multicast data from the ingress to the egresses using the shortest IGP paths to the egresses. They include:

o BEM-MRH:
Stateless Best Effort Multicast Using MRH [I-D.chen-pim-be-mrh].
o BIER:
Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication [RFC8279].
o RGB:
RGB (Replication through Global Bitstring) Segment for Multicast Source Routing over IPv6 [I-D.lx-msr6-rgb-segment].

This document describes simulations of stateless best effort Multicasts and lists a set of simulation results for different large network sizes and different tree sizes.

1.1. Acronyms

The following acronyms are used in this document:

CE:
Customer edge/equipment.
MRH:
Multicast Routing Header.
P2MP:
Point 2 Multi-Point.
PE:
Provider Edge.

2. Simulations of BE Multicasts

A simulation of a BE Multicast means a computation of the encoding of a tree in a given network according to the BE Multicast. The tree has a number of egresses/leaves, which is the size of the tree. The network has a number of nodes, which is the size of the network.

For a given network size (i.e., a number of nodes in the network), we assume that half of the nodes are PEs. For a given tree size (i.e., a number of leaves/egresses) T, we select T egress nodes from the PEs randomly first. And then we compute the encoding of the tree with these T selected egress nodes. The computation results include the total size of the encoding of the tree and the number of packet copies that the ingress/root of the tree will encapsulate and send.

For simulating Stateless Best Effort Multicast Using MRH (BEM-MRH) defined in [I-D.chen-pim-be-mrh], we compute the encoding according to BE-MRH for each of the trees with different tree sizes in each of the networks with different network sizes.

3. Some Simulation Results

Suppose that we have a set of network sizes netSizes = {4096, 8192, 16384} and a set of tree sizes treeSizes = {16, 24, 32, 48, 64, 80, 96, 128}. We simulate the BEM-MRH and BIER for each tree size in treeSizes for each network size in netSizes. For BIER, we use BitString length 256 (bits).

Figure 1 shows the results of simulating the BEM-MRH and BIER for every tree size for network size 4096.

+======+=========================+=========================+
|      |       BEM-MRH           |        BIER             |
| Tree | Encoding |Number of     | Encoding |Number of     |
| Size | Size     |Packet Copies | Size     |Packet Copies |
+======+==========+==============+==========+==============+
|  16  |    32    |      1       |    224   |       7      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  24  |    47    |      1       |    256   |       8      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  32  |    62    |      1       |    256   |       8      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  48  |    93    |      1       |    256   |       8      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  64  |   128    |      1       |    256   |       8      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  80  |   154    |      1       |    256   |       8      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  96  |   164    |      1       |    256   |       8      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| 128  |   196    |      1       |    256   |       8      |
+======+==========+==============+==========+==============+
Figure 1: Results of simulating BEM-MRH and BIER for network with 4096 nodes

From the simulation results of BEM-MRH in the figure, we see that the number of packet copies is 1 for any tree size (refer to the third column of the table). This indicates that after receiving a multicast packet from a traffic source such as a CE, the ingress/root of the tree can encapsulate one packet copy and send the packet to the egress/leaf nodes of the tree through using BEM-MRH.

From the simulation results of BIER in the figure, we see that the number of packet copies is 7 for tree size 16 and 8 for any other tree size (refer to the last column of the table). This indicates that after receiving a multicast packet from a traffic source such as a CE, the ingress/root of the tree need to make 7/8 packet copies, encapsulate each of the copies and send the packet copies to the egress/leaf nodes of the tree through using BIER.

From the simulation results of BEM-MRH in the figure, we see that the total size of the encoding tree is 32 (bytes) for a tree with 16 leaves/egresses, 47 (bytes) for a tree with 24 leaves/egresses, ..., 196 (bytes) for a tree with 128 leaves/egresses (refer to the second column of the table). The total size of the encoding tree is always less than or equal to two times the tree size.

From the simulation results of BIER in the figure, we see that the total size of the encoding tree is 224 (bytes) for a tree with 16 leaves/egresses, and 256 (bytes) for any other tree size (refer to the fourth column of the table).

Figure 2 shows the results of simulating the BEM-MRH and BIER for every tree size for network size 8192.

+======+=========================+=========================+
|      |       BEM-MRH           |        BIER             |
| Tree | Encoding |Number of     | Encoding |Number of     |
| Size | Size     |Packet Copies | Size     |Packet Copies |
+======+==========+==============+==========+==============+
|  16  |    32    |      1       |    320   |      10      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  24  |    48    |      1       |    352   |      11      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  32  |    64    |      1       |    416   |      13      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  48  |    96    |      1       |    448   |      14      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  64  |   124    |      1       |    512   |      16      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  80  |   159    |      1       |    512   |      16      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  96  |   187    |      1       |    512   |      16      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| 128  |   235    |      1       |    512   |      16      |
+======+==========+==============+==========+==============+
Figure 2: Results of simulating BEM-MRH and BIER for network with 8192 nodes

From the simulation results of BEM-MRH in the figure, we see that the number of packet copies is 1 for any tree size (refer to the third column of the table). This indicates that after receiving a multicast packet from a traffic source such as a CE, the ingress/root of the tree can encapsulate one packet copy and send the packet to the egress/leaf nodes of the tree through using BEM-MRH.

From the simulation results of BIER in the figure, we see that the number of packet copies is from 10 to 16 for tree size from 16 to 128 (refer to the last column of the table). This indicates that after receiving a multicast packet from a traffic source such as a CE, the ingress/root of the tree need to make 10 to 16 packet copies, encapsulate each of the copies and send the packet copies to the egress/leaf nodes of the tree through using BIER.

From the simulation results of BEM-MRH in the figure, we see that the total size of the encoding tree is 32 (bytes) for a tree with 16 leaves/egresses, 48 (bytes) for a tree with 24 leaves/egresses, ..., 235 (bytes) for a tree with 128 leaves/egresses (refer to the second column of the table). The total size of the encoding tree is always less than or equal to two times the tree size.

From the simulation results of BIER in the figure, we see that the total size of the encoding tree is from 320 to 512 (bytes) for a tree with size from 16 to 128 (leaves/egresses) (refer to the fourth column of the table).

Figure 3 shows the results of simulating the BEM-MRH and BIER for every tree size for network size 16384.

+======+=========================+=========================+
|      |       BEM-MRH           |        BIER             |
| Tree | Encoding |Number of     | Encoding |Number of     |
| Size | Size     |Packet Copies | Size     |Packet Copies |
+======+==========+==============+==========+==============+
|  16  |    32    |      1       |    384   |      12      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  24  |    48    |      1       |    480   |      15      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  32  |    64    |      1       |    704   |      22      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  48  |    96    |      1       |    800   |      25      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  64  |   126    |      1       |    896   |      28      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  80  |   158    |      1       |    928   |      29      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|  96  |   192    |      1       |    992   |      31      |
+------+----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| 128  |   256    |      1       |   1024   |      32      |
+======+==========+==============+==========+==============+
Figure 3: Results of simulating BEM-MRH and BIER for network with 16384 nodes

From the simulation results of BEM-MRH in the figure, we see that the number of packet copies is 1 for any tree size (refer to the third column of the table). This indicates that after receiving a multicast packet from a traffic source such as a CE, the ingress/root of the tree can encapsulate one packet copy and send the packet to the egress/leaf nodes of the tree through using BEM-MRH.

From the simulation results of BIER in the figure, we see that the number of packet copies is from 12 to 32 for tree size from 16 to 128 (refer to the last column of the table). This indicates that after receiving a multicast packet from a traffic source such as a CE, the ingress/root of the tree need to make 12 to 32 packet copies, encapsulate each of the copies and send the packet copies to the egress/leaf nodes of the tree through using BIER.

From the simulation results of BEM-MRH in the figure, we see that the total size of the encoding tree is 32 (bytes) for a tree with 16 leaves/egresses, 48 (bytes) for a tree with 24 leaves/egresses, ..., 256 (bytes) for a tree with 128 leaves/egresses (refer to the second column of the table). The total size of the encoding tree is always less than or equal to two times the tree size.

From the simulation results of BIER in the figure, we see that the total size of the encoding tree is from 384 to 1024 (bytes) for a tree with size from 16 to 128 (leaves/egresses) (refer to the fourth column of the table).

5. IANA Considerations

No IANA is requested.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[I-D.chen-pim-be-mrh]
Chen, H., Eastlake, D. E., McBride, M., Fan, Y., Mishra, G. S., Liu, Y., Wang, A., Liu, X., and L. Liu, "Stateless Best Effort Multicast Using MRH", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chen-pim-be-mrh-02, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-pim-be-mrh-02>.
[I-D.lx-msr6-rgb-segment]
Liu, Y., Xie, J., Geng, X., and M. Chen, "RGB (Replication through Global Bitstring) Segment for Multicast Source Routing over IPv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-lx-msr6-rgb-segment-04, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lx-msr6-rgb-segment-04>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200]
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8279]
Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

7.2. Informative References

[I-D.chen-pim-srv6-p2mp-path]
Chen, H., McBride, M., Fan, Y., Li, Z., Geng, X., Toy, M., Mishra, G. S., Wang, A., Liu, L., and X. Liu, "Stateless SRv6 Point-to-Multipoint Path", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chen-pim-srv6-p2mp-path-08, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-pim-srv6-p2mp-path-08>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z. J. Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-07, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-07>.

Authors' Addresses

Huaimo Chen
Futurewei
Boston, MA,
United States of America
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Futurewei
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL, 32703
United States of America
Mike McBride
Futurewei
Yanhe Fan
Casa Systems
United States of America
Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Phone: 301 502-1347
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
102209
China
Xufeng Liu
IBM Corporation
United States of America
Lei Liu
Fujitsu
United States of America