IETF Draft Vishal Sharma
Multi-Protocol Label Switching Ben-Mack Crane
Expires: March 2001 Srinivas Makam
Ken Owens
Tellabs Operations, Inc.
Changcheng Huang
Carleton University
Fiffi Hellstrand
Jon Weil
Loa Andersson
Bilel Jamoussi
Nortel Networks
Brad Cain
Mirror Image Internet
Seyhan Civanlar
Coreon Networks
Angela Chiu
AT&T Labs
September 2000
Framework for MPLS-based Recovery
<draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt>
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. 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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
Multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) [1] integrates the label
swapping forwarding paradigm with network layer routing. To deliver
reliable service, MPLS requires a set of procedures to provide
protection of the traffic carried on different paths. This requires
that the label switched routers (LSRs) support fault detection,
Makam, et al. Expires March 2001 [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
fault notification, and fault recovery mechanisms, and that MPLS
signaling [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] support the configuration of
recovery. With these objectives in mind, this document specifies a
framework for MPLS based recovery.
Table of Contents Page
1.0 Introduction 3
1.1 Background 3
1.2 Motivations for MPLS-Based Recovery 3
1.3 Objectives 4
2.0 Overview 5
2.1 Recovery Models 6
2.2 Recovery Cycles 7
2.2.1 MPLS Recovery Cycle Model 7
2.2.2 MPLS Reversion Cycle Model 9
2.2.3 Dynamic Reroute Cycle Model 10
2.3 Definitions and Terminology 11
2.4 Abbreviations 15
3.0 MPLS Recovery Principles 15
3.1 Configuration of Recovery 15
3.2 Initiation of Path Setup 15
3.3 Initiation of Resource Allocation 16
3.4 Scope of Recovery 17
3.4.1 Topology 17
3.4.1.1 Local Repair 17
3.4.1.2 Global Repair 17
3.4.1.3 Alternate Egress Repair 18
3.4.1.4 Multi-Layer Repair 18
3.4.1.5 Concatenated Protection Domains 18
3.4.2 Path Mapping 18
3.4.3 Bypass Tunnels 19
3.4.4 Recovery Granularity 20
3.4.4.1 Selective Traffic Recovery 20
3.4.4.2 Bundling 20
3.4.5 Recovery Path Resource Use 20
3.5 Fault Detection 21
3.6 Fault Notification 21
3.7 Switch Over Operation 22
3.7.1 Recovery Trigger 22
3.7.2 Recovery Action 22
3.8 Switch Back Operation 23
3.8.1 Revertive and Non-revertive Mode 23
3.8.2 Restoration and Notification 23
3.8.3 Reverting to Preferred Path 23
3.9 Performance 24
4.0 Recovery Requirements 25
5.0 MPLS Recovery Options 25
6.0 Comparison Criteria 26
7.0 Security Considerations 27
8.0 Intellectual Property Considerations 27
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
9.0 Acknowledgements 28
10.0 Author's Addresses 28
11.0 References 29
1.0 Introduction
This memo describes a framework for MPLS-based recovery. We provide
a detailed taxonomy of recovery terminology, and discuss the
motivation for, the objectives of, and the requirements for MPLS-
based recovery. We outline principles for MPLS-based recovery, and
also provide comparison criteria that may serve as a basis for
comparing and evaluating different recovery schemes.
1.1 Background
Network routing deployed today is focussed primarily on
connectivity and typically supports only one class of service, the
best effort class. Multi-protocol label switching, on the other
hand, by integrating forwarding based on label-swapping of a link
local label with network layer routing allows flexibility in the
delivery of new routing services. MPLS allows for using media
specific forwarding mechanisms as label swapping. This enables more
sophisticated features such as quality-of-service (QoS) and traffic
engineering [7] to be implemented more effectively. An important
component of providing QoS, however, is the ability to transport
data reliably and efficiently. Although the current routing
algorithms are very robust and survivable, the amount of time they
take to recover from a fault can be significant, on the order of
several seconds or minutes, causing serious disruption of service
for some applications in the interim. This is unacceptable to many
organizations that aim to provide a highly reliable service, and
thus require recovery times on the order of tens of milliseconds,
as specified, for example, in the GR253 specification for SONET.
MPLS recovery may be motivated by the notion that there are
inherent limitations to improving the recovery times of current
routing algorithms. Additional improvement not obtainable by other
means can be obtained by augmenting these algorithms with MPLS
recovery mechanisms. Since MPLS is likely to be the technology of
choice in the future IP-based transport network, it is useful that
MPLS be able to provide protection and restoration of traffic.
MPLS may facilitate the convergence of network functionality on a
common control and management plane. Further, a protection priority
could be used as a differentiating mechanism for premium services
that require high reliability. The remainder of this document
provides a framework for MPLS based recovery. It is focused at a
conceptual level and is meant to address motivation, objectives and
requirements. Issues of mechanism, policy, routing plans and
characteristics of traffic carried by protection paths are beyond
the scope of this document.
1.2 Motivation for MPLS-Based Recovery
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
MPLS based protection of traffic (called MPLS-based Recovery) is
useful for a number of reasons. The most important is its ability
to increase network reliability by enabling a faster response to
faults than is possible with traditional Layer 3 (or the IP layer)
alone while still providing the visibility of the network afforded
Layer 3. Furthermore, a protection mechanism using MPLS could
enable IP traffic to be put directly over WDM optical channels,
without an intervening SONET layer. This would facilitate the
construction of IP-over-WDM networks.
The need for MPLS-based recovery arises because of the following:
I. Layer 3 or IP rerouting may be too slow for a core MPLS network
that needs to support high reliability/availability.
II. Layer 0 (for example, optical layer) or Layer 1 (for example,
SONET) mechanisms may not be deployed in topologies that meet
carriersÆ protection goals.
III. The granularity at which the lower layers may be able to
protect traffic may be too coarse for traffic that is switched
using MPLS-based mechanisms.
IV. Layer 0 or Layer 1 mechanisms may have no visibility into
higher layer operations. Thus, while they may provide, for
example, link protection, they cannot easily provide node
protection or protection of traffic transported using MPLS.
Furthermore there is a need for open standards.
V. Establishing interoperability of protection mechanisms between
routers/LSRs from different vendors in IP or MPLS networks is
urgently required to enable the adoption of MPLS as a viable core
transport and traffic engineering technology.
1.3 Objectives/Goals
We lay down the following objectives for MPLS-based recovery.
I. MPLS-based recovery mechanisms should facilitate fast (10Æs of
ms) recovery times.
II. MPLS-based recovery should maximize network reliability and
availability. MPLS based protection of traffic should minimize the
number of single points of failure in the MPLS protected domain.
III. MPLS based recovery should enhance the reliability of the
protected traffic while minimally or predictably degrading the
traffic carried by the diverted resources.
IV. MPLS-based recovery techniques should be applicable for
protection of traffic at various granularities. For example, it
should be possible to specify MPLS-based recovery for a portion of
the traffic on an individual path, for all traffic on an individual
path, or for all traffic on a group of paths.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
V. MPLS-based recovery techniques may be applicable for an entire
end-to-end path or for segments of an end-to-end path.
VI. MPLS-based recovery actions should not adversely affect other
network operations.
VII. MPLS-based recovery actions in one MPLS protection domain
(defined in Section 2.2) should not adversely affect the recovery
actions in other MPLS protection domains.
VII. MPLS-based recovery mechanisms should be able to take into
consideration the recovery actions of lower layers.
VIII. MPLS-based recovery actions should avoid network-layering
violations. That is, defects in MPLS-based mechanisms should not
trigger lower layer protection switching.
IX. MPLS-based recovery mechanisms should minimize the loss of data
and packet reordering during recovery operations. (The current MPLS
specification has itself no explicit requirement on reordering).
X. MPLS-based recovery mechanisms should minimize the state
overhead incurred for each recovery path maintained.
XI. MPLS-based recovery mechanisms should be able to preserve the
constraints on traffic after switchover, if desired. That is, if
desired, the recovery path should meet the resource requirements
of, and achieve the same performance characteristics, as the
working path.
2.0 Overview
There are several options for providing protection of traffic using
MPLS. The most generic requirement is the specification of whether
recovery should be via Layer 3 (or IP) rerouting or via MPLS
protection switching or rerouting actions.
Generally network operators aim to provide the fastest and the best
protection mechanism that can be provided at a reasonable cost. The
higher the level of protection, the more resources it consumes,
therefore it is expected that network operators will offer a
spectrum of service levels. MPLS-based recovery should give the
flexibility to select the recovery mechanism, choose the
granularity at which traffic is protected, and to also choose the
specific types of traffic that are protected in order to give
operators more control over that tradeoff. With MPLS-based
recovery, it can be possible to provide different levels of
protection for different classes of service, based on their service
requirements. For example, using approaches outlined below, a VLL
service that supports real-time applications like VoIP may be
supported using link/node protection together with pre-established,
pre-reserved path protection, while best effort traffic may use
established-on-demand path protection or simply rely on IP re-
route or higher layer recovery mechanisms. As another example of
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
their range of application, MPLS-based recovery strategies may be
used to protect traffic not originally flowing on label switched
paths, such as IP traffic that is normally routed hop-by-hop, as
well as traffic forwarded on label switched paths.
2.1 Recovery Models
There are two basic models for path recovery: rerouting and
protection switching.
Protection switching and rerouting, as defined below, may be used
together. For example, protection switching to a recovery path may
be used for rapid restoration of connectivity while rerouting
determines a new optimal network configuration, rearranging paths,
as needed, at a later time [8] [9].
2.1.1 Rerouting
Recovery by rerouting is defined as establishing new paths or path
segments on demand for restoring traffic after the occurrence of a
fault. The new paths may be based upon fault information, network
routing policies, pre-defined configurations and network topology
information. Thus, upon detecting a fault, paths or path segments
to bypass the fault are established using signaling. Reroute
mechanisms are inherently slower than protection switching
mechanisms, since more must be done following the detection of a
fault. However reroute mechanisms are simpler and more frugal as no
resources are committed until after the fault occurs and the
location of the fault is known.
Pre-planned techniques need to take into account all possible
failures in the protected domain such that " blind switching" upon
detection of failure has a high probability of providing useful
recovery.
Once the network routing algorithms have converged after a fault,
it may be preferable, in some cases, to reoptimize the network by
performing a reroute based on the current state of the network and
network policies. This is currently discussed further in Section
3.8, but will also be clarified further in upcoming revisions of
this document.
In terms of the principles defined in section 3, reroute recovery
employs paths established-on-demand with resources reserved-on-
demand.
2.1.2 Protection Switching
Protection switching recovery mechanisms pre-establish a recovery
path or path segment, based upon network routing policies, the
restoration requirements of the traffic on the working path, and
administrative considerations. The recovery path may or may not be
link and node disjoint with the working path [10]. However if the
recovery path shares sources of failure with the working path, the
overall reliability of the construct is degraded. When a fault is
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
detected, the protected traffic is switched over to the recovery
path(s) and restored.
In terms of the principles in section 3, protection switching
employs pre-established recovery paths, and if resource reservation
is required on the recovery path, pre-reserved resources.
2.1.2.1. Subtypes of Protection Switching
The resources (bandwidth, buffers, processing) on the recovery path
may be used to carry either a copy of the working path traffic or
extra traffic that is displaced when a protection switch occurs.
This leads to two subtypes of protection switching.
In 1+1 ("one plus one") protection, the resources (bandwidth,
buffers, processing capacity) on the recovery path are fully
reserved, and carry the same traffic as the working path. Selection
between the traffic on the working and recovery paths is made at
the path merge LSR (PML). In effect the PSL function is deprecated
to establishment of the working and protection paths and a simple
replication function. The recovery intelligence is delegated to the
PML.
In 1:1 ("one for one") protection, the resources (if any) allocated
on the recovery path are fully available to preemptible low
priority traffic except when the recovery path is in use due to a
fault on the working path. In other words, in 1:1 protection, the
protected traffic normally travels only on the working path, and is
switched to the recovery path only when the working path has a
fault. Once the protection switch is initiated, the low priority
traffic being carried on the recovery path may be displaced by the
protected traffic. This method affords a way to make efficient use
of the recovery path resources.
This concept can be extended to 1:n (one for n) and m:n (m for n)
protection.
Additional specifications of the recovery actions are found in
Section
2.2 The Recovery Cycles
There are three defined recovery cycles; the MPLS Recovery Cycle,
the MPLS Reversion Cycle and the Dynamic Re-routing Cycle. The
first cycle detects a fault and restores traffic onto MPLS-based
recovery paths. If the recovery path is non-optimal the cycle may
be followed by any of the two latter to achieve an optimized
network again. The reversion cycle applies for explicitly routed
traffic that that does not rely on any dynamic routing protocols to
be converged. The dynamic re-routing cycle applies for traffic that
is forwarded based on hop-by-hop routing.
2.2.1 MPLS Recovery Cycle Model
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
The MPLS recovery cycle model is illustrated in Figure 1.
Definitions and a key to abbreviations follow.
--Network Impairment
| --Fault Detected
| | --Start of Notification
| | | -- Start of Recovery Operation
| | | | --Recovery Operation Complete
| | | | | --Path Traffic Restored
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
v v v v v v
----------------------------------------------------------------
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 |
Figure 1. MPLS Recovery Cycle Model
The various timing measures used in the model are described below.
T1 Fault Detection Time
T2 Hold-off Time
T3 Notification Time
T4 Recovery Operation Time
T5 Traffic Restoration Time
Definitions of the recovery cycle times are as follows:
Fault Detection Time
The time between the occurrence of a network impairment and the
moment the fault is detected by MPLS-based recovery mechanisms.
This time may be highly dependent on lower layer protocols.
Hold-Off Time
The configured waiting time between the detection of a fault and
taking MPLS-based recovery action, to allow time for lower layer
protection to take effect. The Hold-off Time may be zero.
Note: The Hold-Off Time may occur after the Notification Time
interval if the node responsible for the switchover, the Path
Switch LSR (PSL), rather than the detecting LSR, is configured to
wait.
Notification Time
The time between initiation of a fault indication signal (FIS) by
the LSR detecting the fault and the time at which the Path Switch
LSR (PSL) begins the recovery operation. This is zero if the PSL
detects the fault itself or infers a fault from such events as an
adjacency failure.
Note: If the PSL detects the fault itself, there still may be a
Hold-Off Time period between detection and the start of the
recovery operation.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
Recovery Operation Time
The time between the first and last recovery actions. This may
include message exchanges between the PSL and PML to coordinate
recovery actions.
Traffic Restoration Time
The time between the last recovery action and the time that the
traffic (if present) is completely recovered. This interval is
intended to account for the time required for traffic to once again
arrive at the point in the network that experienced disrupted or
degraded service due to the occurrence of the fault (e.g. the PML).
This time may depend on the location of the fault, the recovery
mechanism, and the propagation delay along the recovery path.
2.2.2 MPLS Reversion Cycle Model
Protection switching, revertive mode, requires the traffic to be
switched back to a preferred path when the fault on that path is
cleared. The MPLS reversion cycle model is illustrated in Figure
2. Note that the cycle shown below comes after the recovery cycle
shown in Fig. 1.
--Network Impairment Repaired
| --Fault Cleared
| | --Path Available
| | | --Start of Reversion Operation
| | | | --Reversion Operation Complete
| | | | | --Traffic Restored on Preferred Path
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
v v v v v v
---------------------------------------------------------------
| T7 | T8 | T9 | T10| T11|
Figure 2. MPLS Reversion Cycle Model
The various timing measures used in the model are described below.
T7 Fault Clearing Time
T8 Wait-to-Restore Time
T9 Notification Time
T10 Reversion Operation Time
T11 Traffic Restoration Time
Note that time T6 (not shown above) is the time for which the
network impairment is not repaired and traffic is flowing on the
recovery path.
Definitions of the reversion cycle times are as follows:
Fault Clearing Time
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
The time between the repair of a network impairment and the time
that MPLS-based mechanisms learn that the fault has been cleared.
This time may be highly dependent on lower layer protocols.
Wait-to-Restore Time
The configured waiting time between the clearing of a fault and
MPLS-based recovery action(s). Waiting time may be needed to
ensure the path is stable and to avoid flapping in cases where a
fault is intermittent. The Wait-to-Restore Time may be zero.
Note: The Wait-to-Restore Time may occur after the Notification
Time interval if the PSL is configured to wait.
Notification Time
The time between initiation of an FRS by the LSR clearing the fault
and the time at which the path switch LSR begins the reversion
operation. This is zero if the PSL clears the fault itself.
Note: If the PSL clears the fault itself, there still may be a
Wait-to-Restore Time period between fault clearing and the start of
the reversion operation.
Reversion Operation Time
The time between the first and last reversion actions. This may
include message exchanges between the PSL and PML to coordinate
reversion actions.
Traffic Restoration Time
The time between the last reversion action and the time that
traffic (if present) is completely restored on the preferred path.
This interval is expected to be quite small since both paths are
working and care may be taken to limit the traffic disruption
(e.g., using "make before break" techniques and synchronous switch-
over).
In practice, the only interesting times in the reversion cycle are
the Wait-to-Restore Time and the Traffic Restoration Time (or some
other measure of traffic disruption). Given that both paths are
available, there is no need for rapid operation, and a well-
controlled switch-back with minimal disruption is desirable.
2.2.3 Dynamic Re-routing Cycle Model
Dynamic rerouting aims to bring the IP network to a stable state
after a network impairment has occurred. A re-optimized network is
achieved after the routing protocols have converged, and the
traffic is moved from a recovery path to a (possibly) new working
path. The steps involved in this mode are illustrated in Figure 3.
Note that the cycle shown below may follow the recovery cycle shown
in Fig. 1 or the reversion cycle shown in Fig. 2, or both (in the
event that both the recovery cycle and the reversion cycle take
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
place before the routing protocols converge, and after the
convergence of the routing protocols it is determined (based on on-
line algorithms or off-line traffic engineering tools, network
configuration, or a variety of other possible criteria) that there
is a better route for the working path).
--Network Enters a Semi-stable State after an Impairment
| --Dynamic Routing Protocols Converge
| | --Initiate Setup of New Working Path between PSL
| | | and PML
| | | --Switchover Operation Complete
| | | | --Traffic Moved to New Working Path
| | | | |
| | | | |
v v v v v
---------------------------------------------------------------
| T12 | T13 | T14 | T15 |
Figure 3. Dynamic Rerouting Cycle Model
The various timing measures used in the model are described below.
T12 Network Route Convergence Time
T13 Hold-down Time (optional)
T14 Switchover Operation Time
T15 Traffic Restoration Time
Network Route Convergence Time
We define the network route convergence time as the time taken for
the network routing protocols to converge and for the network to
reach a stable state.
Holddown Time
We define the holddown period as a bounded time for which a
recovery path must be used. In some scenarios it may be difficult
to determine if the working path is stable. In these cases a
holddown time may be used to prevent excess flapping of traffic
between a working and a recovery path.
Switchover Operation Time
The time between the first and last switchover actions. This may
include message exchanges between the PSL and PML to coordinate the
switchover actions.
As an example of the recovery cycle, we present a sequence of
events that occur after a network impairment occurs and when a
protection switch is followed by dynamic rerouting.
I. Link or path fault occurs
II. Signaling initiated (FIS) for the fault detected
III. FIS arrives at the PSL
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
IV. The PSL initiates a protection switch to a pre-configured
recovery path
V. The PSL switches over the traffic from the working path to the
recovery path
VI. The network enters a semi-stable state
VII. Dynamic routing protocols converge after the fault, and a new
working path is calculated (based, for example, on some of the
criteria mentioned earlier in Section 2.1.1).
VIII. A new working path is established between the PSL and the PML
(assumption is that PSL and PML have not changed)
IX. Traffic is switched over to the new working path.
2.3 Definitions and Terminology
This document assumes the terminology given in [11], and, in
addition, introduces the following new terms.
2.3.1 General Recovery Terminology
Rerouting
A recovery mechanism in which the recovery path or path segments
are created dynamically after the detection of a fault on the
working path. In other words, a recovery mechanism in which the
recovery path is not pre-established.
Protection Switching
A recovery mechanism in which the recovery path or path segments
are created prior to the detection of a fault on the working path.
In other words, a recovery mechanism in which the recovery path is
pre-established.
Working Path
The protected path that carries traffic before the occurrence of a
fault. The working path exists between a PSL and PML. The working
path can be of different kinds; a hop-by-hop routed path, a trunk,
a link, an LSP or part of a multipoint-to-point LSP.
Synonyms for a working path are primary path and active path.
Recovery Path
The path by which traffic is restored after the occurrence of a
fault. In other words, the path on which the traffic is directed by
the recovery mechanism. The recovery path is established by MPLS
means. The recovery path can either be an equivalent recovery path
and ensure no reduction in quality of service, or be a limited
recovery path and thereby not guarantee the same quality of service
(or some other criteria of performance) as the working path. A
limited recovery path is not expected to be used for an extended
period of time.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
Synonyms for a recovery path are: back-up path, alternative path,
and protection path.
Protection Counterpart
The "other" path when discussing pre-planned protection switching
schemes. The protection counterpart for the working path is the
recovery path and vice-versa.
Path Group (PG)
A logical bundling of multiple working paths, each of which is
routed identically between a Path Switch LSR and a Path Merge LSR.
Protected Path Group (PPG)
A path group that requires protection.
Protected Traffic Portion (PTP)
The portion of the traffic on an individual path that requires
protection. For example, code points in the EXP bits of the shim
header may identify a protected portion.
Path Switch LSR (PSL)
An LSR that is the transmitter of both the working path traffic and
its corresponding recovery path traffic. The PSL is responsible for
switching or replicating the traffic between the working path and
the recovery path.
Path Merge LSR (PML)
An LSR that receives both working path traffic and its
corresponding recovery path traffic, and either merges their
traffic into a single outgoing path, or, if it is itself the
destination, passes the traffic on to the higher layer protocols.
Intermediate LSR
An LSR on a working or recovery path that is neither a PSL nor a
PML for that path.
Bypass Tunnel
A path that serves to backup a set of working paths using the label
stacking approach. The working paths and the bypass tunnel must all
share the same path switch LSR (PSL) and the path merge LSR (PML).
Switch-Over
The process of switching the traffic from the path that the traffic
is flowing on onto one or more alternate path(s). This may involve
moving traffic from a working path onto one or more recovery paths,
or may involve moving traffic from a recovery path(s) on to a more
optimal working path(s).
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
Switch-Back
The process of returning the traffic from one or more recovery
paths back to the working path(s).
Revertive Mode
A recovery mode in which traffic is automatically switched back
from the recovery path to the original working path upon the
restoration of the working path to a fault-free condition.
Non-revertive Mode
A recovery mode in which traffic is not automatically switched back
to the original working path after this path is restored to a
fault-free condition. (Depending on the configuration, the original
working path may, upon moving to a fault-free condition, become the
recovery path, or it may be used for new working traffic, and be no
longer associated with its original recovery path).
MPLS Protection Domain
The set of LSRs over which a working path and its corresponding
recovery path are routed.
MPLS Protection Plan
The set of all LSP protection paths and the mapping from working to
protection paths deployed in an MPLS protection domain at a given
time.
Liveness Message
A message exchanged periodically between two adjacent LSRs that
serves as a link probing mechanism. It provides an integrity check
of the forward and the backward directions of the link between the
two LSRs as well as a check of neighbor aliveness.
Path Continuity Test
A test that verifies the integrity and continuity of a path or path
segment. The details of such a test are beyond the scope of this
draft. (This could be accomplished, for example, by transmitting a
control message along the same links and nodes as the data traffic
or similarly could be measured by the absence of traffic and by
providing feedback.)
2.3.2 Failure Terminology
Path Failure (PF)
Path failure is fault detected by MPLS-based recovery mechanisms,
which is define as the failure of the liveness message test or a
path continuity test, which indicates that path connectivity is
lost.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
Path Degraded (PD)
Path degraded is a fault detected by MPLS-based recovery mechanisms
that indicates that the quality of the path is unacceptable.
Link Failure (LF)
A lower layer fault indicating that link continuity is lost. This
may be communicated to the MPLS-based recovery mechanisms by the
lower layer.
Link Degraded (LD)
A lower layer indication to MPLS-based recovery mechanisms that the
link is performing below an acceptable level.
Fault Indication Signal (FIS)
A signal that indicates that a fault along a path has occurred. It
is relayed by each intermediate LSR to its upstream or downstream
neighbor, until it reaches an LSR that is setup to perform MPLS
recovery.
Fault Recovery Signal (FRS)
A signal that indicates a fault along a working path has been
repaired. Again, like the FIS, it is relayed by each intermediate
LSR to its upstream or downstream neighbor, until is reaches the
LSR that performs recovery of the original path.
2.4 Abbreviations
FIS: Fault Indication Signal.
FRS: Fault Recovery Signal.
LD: Link Degraded.
LF: Link Failure.
PD: Path Degraded.
PF: Path Failure.
PML: Path Merge LSR.
PG: Path Group.
PPG: Protected Path Group.
PTP: Protected Traffic Portion.
PSL: Path Switch LSR.
3.0 MPLS-based Recovery Principles
MPLS-based recovery refers to the ability to effect quick and
complete restoration of traffic affected by a fault in an MPLS-
enabled network. The fault may be detected on the IP layer or in
lower layers over which IP traffic is transported. Fast MPLS
protection may be viewed as the MPLS LSR switch completion time
that is comparable to, or equivalent to, the 50 ms switch-over
completion time of the SONET layer. This section provides a
discussion of the concepts and principles of MPLS-based recovery.
The concepts are presented in terms of atomic or primitive terms
that may be combined to specify recovery approaches. We do not
make any assumptions about the underlying layer 1 or layer 2
transport mechanisms or their recovery mechanisms.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
3.1 Configuration of Recovery
An LSR should allow for configuration of the following recovery
options:
Default-recovery (No MPLS-based recovery enabled):
Traffic on the working path is recovered only via Layer 3 or IP
rerouting. This is equivalent to having no MPLS-based recovery.
This option may be used for low priority traffic or for traffic
that is recovered in another way (for example load shared traffic
on parallel working paths may be automatically recovered upon a
fault along one of the working paths by distributing it among the
remaining working paths).
Recoverable (MPLS-based recovery enabled):
This working path is recovered using one or more recovery paths,
either via rerouting or via protection switching.
3.2 Initiation of Path Setup
As explained in Section 2.2, there are two options for the
initiation of the recovery path setup.
Pre-established:
This is the same as the protection switching option. Here a
recovery path(s) is established prior to any failure on the working
path. The path selection can either be determined by an
administrative centralized tool (online or offline), or chosen
based on some algorithm implemented at the PSL and possibly
intermediate nodes. To guard against the situation when the pre-
established recovery path fails before or at the same time as the
working path, the recovery path should have secondary configuration
options as explained in Section 3.3 below.
Pre Qualified:
A pre-established path need not be created, it may be pre-
qualified. A pre-qualified recovery path is not created expressly
for protecting the working path, but instead is a path created for
other purposes that is designated as a recovery path after
determination that it is an acceptable alternative for carrying the
working path traffic. Variants include the case where an optical
path or trail is configured, but no switches are set.
Established-on-Demand:
This is the same as the rerouting option. Here, a recovery path is
established after a failure on its working path has been detected
and notified to the PSL.
3.3 Initiation of Resource Allocation
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
A recovery path may support the same traffic contract as the
working path, or it may not. We will distinguish these two
situations by using different additive terms. If the recovery path
is capable of replacing the working path without degrading service,
it will be called an equivalent recovery path. If the recovery path
lacks the resources (or resource reservations) to replace the
working path without degrading service, it will be called a limited
recovery path. Based on this, there are two options for the
initiation of resource allocation:
Pre-reserved:
This option applies only to protection switching. Here a pre-
established recovery path reserves required resources on all hops
along its route during its establishment. Although the reserved
resources (e.g., bandwidth and/or buffers) at each node cannot be
used to admit more working paths, they are available to be used by
all traffic that is present at the node before a failure occurs.
Reserved-on-Demand:
This option may apply either to rerouting or to protection
switching. Here a recovery path reserves the required resources
after a failure on the working path has been detected and notified
to the PSL and before the traffic on the working path is switched
over to the recovery path.
Note that under both the options above, depending on the amount of
resources reserved on the recovery path, it could either be an
equivalent recovery path or a limited recovery path.
3.4 Scope of Recovery
3.4.1 Topology
3.4.1.1 Local Repair
The intent of local repair is to protect against a single link or
neighbor node fault. In local repair (also known as local recovery
[12] [9]), the node immediately upstream of the fault is the one to
initiate recovery (either rerouting or protection switching). Local
repair can be of two types:
Link Recovery/Restoration
In this case, the recovery path may be configured to route around a
certain link deemed to be unreliable. If protection switching is
used, several recovery paths may be configured for one working
path, depending on the specific faulty link that each protects
against.
Alternatively, if rerouting is used, upon the occurrence of a fault
on the specified link each path is rebuilt such that it detours
around the faulty link.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
In this case, the recovery path need only be disjoint from its
working path at a particular link on the working path, and may have
overlapping segments with the working path. Traffic on the working
path is switched over to an alternate path at the upstream LSR that
connects to the failed link. This method is potentially the fastest
to perform the switchover, and can be effective in situations where
certain path components are much more unreliable than others.
Node Recovery/Restoration
In this case, the recovery path may be configured to route around a
neighbor node deemed to be unreliable. Thus the recovery path is
disjoint from the working path only at a particular node and at
links associated with the working path at that node. Once again,
the traffic on the primary path is switched over to the recovery
path at the upstream LSR that directly connects to the failed node,
and the recovery path shares overlapping portions with the working
path.
3.4.1.2 Global Repair
The intent of global repair is to protect against any link or node
fault on a label switched path or on a segment of a label switched
path, with the obvious exception of the faults occurring at the
ingress node. In global repair (also known as path
recovery/restoration) the node that initiates the recovery is the
ingress to the label switched path and so may be distant from the
faulty link or node. In some cases, a fault notification (in the
form of a FIS) must be sent from the node detecting the fault to
the PSL. In many cases, the recovery path can be made completely
link and node disjoint with its working path. This has the
advantage of protecting against all link and node fault(s) on the
working path (or path segment), and being more efficient than per-
hop link or node recovery.
In addition, it can be potentially more optimal in resource usage
than the link or node recovery. However, it is in some cases slower
than local repair since it takes longer for the fault notification
message to get to the PSL to trigger the recovery action.
3.4.1.3 Alternate Egress Repair
It is possible to restore service without specifically recovering
the faulted path.
For example, for best effort IP service it is possible to select a
recovery path that has a different egress point from the working
path (i.e., there is no PML). The recovery path egress must simply
be a router that is acceptable for forwarding the FEC carried by
the working path (without creating looping). In an engineering
context, specific alternative FEC/LSP mappings with alternate
egresses can be formed.
This may simplify enhancing the reliability of implicitly
constructed MPLS topologies. A PSL may qualify LSP/FEC bindings as
candidate recovery paths as simply link and node disjoint with the
immediate downstream LSR of the working path.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
3.4.1.4 Multi-Layer Repair
Multi-layer repair broadens the network designerÆs tool set for
those cases where multiple network layers can be managed together
to achieve overall network goals. Specific criteria for
determining when multi-layer repair is appropriate are beyond the
scope of this draft.
3.4.1.5 Concatenated Protection Domains
A given service may cross multiple networks and these may employ
different recovery mechanisms. It is possible to concatenate
protection domains so that service recovery can be provided end-to-
end. It is considered that the recovery mechanisms in different
domains may operate autonomously, and that multiple points of
attachment may be used between domains (to ensure there is no
single point of failure). Alternate egress repair requires
management of concatenated domains in that an explicit MPLS point
of failure (the PML) is by definition excluded. Details of
concatenated protection domains are beyond the scope of this draft.
3.4.2 Path Mapping
Path mapping refers to the methods of mapping traffic from a faulty
working path on to the recovery path. There are several options for
this, as described below. Note that the options below should be
viewed as atomic terms that only describe how the working and
protection paths are mapped to each other. The issues of resource
reservation along these paths, and how switchover is actually
performed lead to the more commonly used composite terms, such as
1+1 and 1:1 protection, which were described in Section 2.1.
1-to-1 Protection
In 1-to-1 protection the working path has a designated recovery
path that is only to be used to recover that specific working path.
ii) n-to-1 Protection
In n-to-1 protection, up to n working paths are protected using
only one recovery path. If the intent is to protect against any
single fault on any of the working paths, the n working paths
should be diversely routed between the same PSL and PML. In some
cases, handshaking between PSL and PML may be required to complete
the recovery, the details of which are beyond the scope of this
draft.
n-to-m Protection
In n-to-m protection, up to n working paths are protected using m
recovery paths. Once again, if the intent is to protect against any
single fault on any of the n working paths, the n working paths and
the m recovery paths should be diversely routed between the same
PSL and PML. In some cases, handshaking between PSL and PML may be
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
required to complete the recovery, the details of which are beyond
the scope of this draft. N-to-m protection is for further study.
Split Path Protection
In split path protection, multiple recovery paths are allowed to
carry the traffic of a working path based on a certain configurable
load splitting ratio. This is especially useful when no single
recovery path can be found that can carry the entire traffic of the
working path in case of a fault. Split path protection may require
handshaking between the PSL and the PML(s), and may require the
PML(s) to correlate the traffic arriving on multiple recovery paths
with the working path. Although this is an attractive option, the
details of split path protection are beyond the scope of this
draft, and are for further study.
3.4.3 Bypass Tunnels
It may be convenient, in some cases, to create a "bypass tunnel"
for a PPG between a PSL and PML, thereby allowing multiple recovery
paths to be transparent to intervening LSRs [Error! Bookmark not
defined.]. In this case, one LSP (the tunnel) is established
between the PSL and PML following an acceptable route and a number
of recovery paths are supported through the tunnel via label
stacking. A bypass tunnel can be used with any of the path mapping
options discussed in the previous section.
As with recovery paths, the bypass tunnel may or may not have
resource reservations sufficient to provide recovery without
service degradation. It is possible that the bypass tunnel may
have sufficient resources to recover some number of working paths,
but not all at the same time. If the number of recovery paths
carrying traffic in the tunnel at any given time is restricted,
this is similar to the 1 to n or m to n protection cases mentioned
in Section 3.4.2.
3.4.4 Recovery Granularity
Another dimension of recovery considers the amount of traffic
requiring protection. This may range from a fraction of a path to a
bundle of paths.
3.4.4.1 Selective Traffic Recovery
This option allows for the protection of a fraction of traffic
within the same path. The portion of the traffic on an individual
path that requires protection is called a protected traffic portion
(PTP). A single path may carry different classes of traffic, with
different protection requirements. The protected portion of this
traffic may be identified by its class, as for example, via the EXP
bits in the MPLS shim header or via the priority bit in the ATM
header.
3.4.4.2 Bundling
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
Bundling is a technique used to group multiple working paths
together in order to recover them simultaneously. The logical
bundling of multiple working paths requiring protection, each of
which is routed identically between a PSL and a PML, is called a
protected path group (PPG). When a fault occurs on the working path
carrying the PPG, the PPG as a whole can be protected either by
being switched to a bypass tunnel or by being switched to a
recovery path.
3.4.5 Recovery Path Resource Use
In the case of pre-reserved recovery paths, there is the question
of what use these resources may be put to when the recovery path is
not in use. There are two options:
Dedicated-resource:
If the recovery path resources are dedicated, they may not be used
for anything except carrying the working traffic. For example, in
the case of 1+1 protection, the working traffic is always carried
on the recovery path. Even if the recovery path is not always
carrying the working traffic, it may not be possible or desirable
to allow other traffic to use these resources.
Extra-traffic-allowed:
If the recovery path only carries the working traffic when the
working path fails, then it is possible to allow extra traffic to
use the reserved resources at other times. Extra traffic is, by
definition, traffic that can be displaced (without violating
service agreements) whenever the recovery path resources are needed
for carrying the working path traffic.
3.5 Fault Detection
MPLS recovery is initiated after the detection of either a lower
layer fault or a fault at the IP layer or in the operation of MPLS-
based mechanisms. We consider four classes of impairments: Path
Failure, Path Degraded, Link Failure, and Link Degraded.
Path Failure (PF) is a fault that indicates to an MPLS-based
recovery scheme that the connectivity of the path is lost. This
may be detected by a path continuity test between the PSL and PML.
Some, and perhaps the most common, path failures may be detected
using a link probing mechanism between neighbor LSRs. An example of
a probing mechanism is a liveness message that is exchanged
periodically along the working path between peer LSRs. For either
a link probing mechanism or path continuity test to be effective,
the test message must be guaranteed to follow the same route as the
working or recovery path, over the segment being tested. In
addition, the path continuity test must take the path merge points
into consideration. In the case of a bi-directional link
implemented as two unidirectional links, path failure could mean
that either one or both unidirectional links are damaged.
Path Degraded (PD) is a fault that indicates to MPLS-based recovery
schemes/mechanisms that the path has connectivity, but that the
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
quality of the connection is unacceptable. This may be detected by
a path performance monitoring mechanism, or some other mechanism
for determining the error rate on the path or some portion of the
path. This is local to the LSR and consists of excessive discarding
of packets at an interface, either due to label mismatch or due to
TTL errors, for example.
Link Failure (LF) is an indication from a lower layer that the link
over which the path is carried has failed. If the lower layer
supports detection and reporting of this fault (that is, any fault
that indicates link failure e.g., SONET LOS), this may be used by
the MPLS recovery mechanism. In some cases, using LF indications
may provide faster fault detection than using only MPLS-based fault
detection mechanisms.
Link Degraded (LD) is an indication from a lower layer that the
link over which the path is carried is performing below an
acceptable level. If the lower layer supports detection and
reporting of this fault, it may be used by the MPLS recovery
mechanism. In some cases, using LD indications may provide faster
fault detection than using only MPLS-based fault detection
mechanisms.
3.6 Fault Notification
Protection switching relies on rapid and reliable notification of
faults. Once a fault is detected, the node that detected the fault
must determine if the fault is severe enough to require path
recovery. Then the node should send out a notification of the fault
by transmitting a FIS to those of its upstream LSRs that were
sending traffic on the working path that is affected by the fault.
This notification is relayed hop-by-hop by each subsequent LSR to
its upstream neighbor, until it eventually reaches a PSL. A PSL is
the only LSR that can terminate the FIS and initiate a protection
switch of the working path to a recovery path.
Since the FIS is a control message, it should be transmitted with
high priority to ensure that it propagates rapidly towards the
affected PSL(s). Depending on how fault notification is configured
in the LSRs of an MPLS domain, the FIS could be sent either as a
Layer 2 or Layer 3 packet. An example of a FIS could be the
liveness message sent by a downstream LSR to its upstream neighbor,
with an optional fault notification field set. Alternatively, it
could be a separate fault notification packet. The intermediate LSR
should identify which of its incoming links (upstream LSRs) to
propagate the FIS on. In the case of 1+1 protection, the FIS should
also be sent downstream to the PML where the recovery action is
taken.
3.7 Switch-Over Operation
3.7.1 Recovery Trigger
The activation of an MPLS protection switch following the detection
or notification of a fault requires a trigger mechanism at the PSL.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
MPLS protection switching may be initiated due to automatic inputs
or external commands. The automatic activation of an MPLS
protection switch results from a response to a defect or fault
conditions detected at the PSL or to fault notifications received
at the PSL. It is possible that the fault detection and trigger
mechanisms may be combined, as is the case when a PF, PD, LF, or LD
is detected at a PSL and triggers a protection switch to the
recovery path. In most cases, however, the detection and trigger
mechanisms are distinct, involving the detection of fault at some
intermediate LSR followed by the propagation of a fault
notification back to the PSL via the FIS, which serves as the
protection switch trigger at the PSL. MPLS protection switching in
response to external commands results when the operator initiates a
protection switch by a command to a PSL (or alternatively by a
configuration command to an intermediate LSR, which transmits the
FIS towards the PSL).
Note that the PF fault applies to hard failures (fiber cuts,
transmitter failures, or LSR fabric failures), as does the LF
fault, with the difference that the LF is a lower layer impairment
that may be communicated to - MPLS-based recovery mechanisms. The
PD (or LD) fault, on the other hand, applies to soft defects
(excessive errors due to noise on the link, for instance). The PD
(or LD) results in a fault declaration only when the percentage of
lost packets exceeds a given threshold, which is provisioned and
may be set based on the service level agreement(s) in effect
between a service provider and a customer.
3.7.2 Recovery Action
After a fault is detected or FIS is received by the PSL, the
recovery action involves either a rerouting or protection switching
operation. In both scenarios, the next hop label forwarding entry
for a recovery path is bound to the working path.
3.8 Switch-Back Operation
3.8.1 Revertive and Non-Revertive Modes
These protection modes indicate whether or not there is a preferred
path for the protected traffic.
3.8.1.1 Revertive Mode
If the working path always is the preferred path, this path will be
used whenever it is available. If the working path has a fault,
traffic is switched to the recovery path. In the revertive mode of
operation, when the preferred path is restored the traffic is
automatically switched back to it.
3.8.1.2 Non-revertive Mode
In the non-revertive mode of operation, there is no preferred path.
A switchback to the "original" working path is not desired or not
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
possible since the original path may no longer exist after the
occurrence of a fault on that path.
If there is a fault on the working path, traffic is switched to the
recovery path. When or if the faulty path (the originally working
path) is restored, it may become the recovery path (either by
configuration, or, if desired, by management actions). This applies
for explicitly routed working paths.
When the traffic is switched over to a recovery path, the
association between the original working path and the recovery path
may no longer exist, since the original path itself may no longer
exist after the fault. Instead, when the network reaches a stable
state following routing convergence, the recovery path may be
switched over to a different preferred path based either on pre-
configured information or optimization based on the new network
topology and associated information.
3.8.2 Restoration and Notification
MPLS restoration deals with returning the working traffic from the
recovery path to the original or a new working path. Reversion is
performed by the PSL upon receiving notification, via FRS, that the
working path is repaired or upon receiving notification that a new
working path is established.
As before, an LSR that detected the fault on the working path also
detects the restoration of the working path. If the working path
had experienced a LF defect, the LSR detects a return to normal
operation via the receipt of a liveness message from its peer. If
the working path had experienced a LD defect at an LSR interface,
the LSR could detect a return to normal operation via the
resumption of error-free packet reception on that interface.
Alternatively, a lower layer that no longer detects a LF defect may
inform the MPLS-based recovery mechanisms at the LSR that the link
to its peer LSR is operational.
The LSR then transmits FRS to its upstream LSR(s) that were
transmitting traffic on the working path. This is relayed hop-by-
hop until it reaches the PSL(s), at which point the PSL switches
the working traffic back to the original working path.
In the non-revertive mode of operation, the working traffic may or
may not be restored to the original working path. This is because
it might be useful, in some cases, to either: (a) administratively
perform a protection switch back to the original working path after
gaining further assurances about the integrity of the path, or (b)
it may be acceptable to continue operation without the recovery
path being protected, or (c) it may be desirable to move the
traffic to a new working path that is calculated based on network
topology and network policies, after the dynamic routing protocols
have converged.
We note that if there is a way to transmit fault information back
along a recovery path towards a PSL and if the recovery path is an
equivalent recovery path, it is possible for the working path and
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
its recovery path to exchange roles once the original working path
is repaired following a fault. This is because, in that case, the
recovery path effectively becomes the working path, and the
restored working path functions as a recovery path for the original
recovery path. This is important, since it affords the benefits of
non-revertive switch operation outlined in Section 3.8.1, without
leaving the recovery path unprotected.
3.8.3 Reverting to Preferred Path (or Controlled Rearrangement)
In the revertive mode, a "make before break" restoration switching
can be used, which is less disruptive than performing protection
switching upon the occurrence of network impairments. This will
minimize both packet loss and packet reordering. The controlled
rearrangement of paths can also be used to satisfy traffic
engineering requirements for load balancing across an MPLS domain.
3.9 Performance
Resource/performance requirements for recovery paths should be
specified in terms of the following attributes:
I. Resource class attribute:
Equivalent Recovery Class: The recovery path has the same resource
reservations and performance guarantees as the working path. In
other words, the recovery path meets the same SLAs as the working
path.
Limited Recovery Class: The recovery path does not have the same
resource reservations and performance guarantees as the working
path.
A. Lower Class: The recovery path has lower resource requirements
or less stringent performance requirements than the working path.
B. Best Effort Class: The recovery path is best effort.
II. Priority Attribute:
The recovery path has a priority attribute just like the working
path (i.e., the priority attribute of the associated traffic
trunks). It can have the same priority as the working path or lower
priority.
III. Preemption Attribute:
The recovery path can have the same preemption attribute as the
working path or a lower one.
4.0 MPLS Recovery Requirement
The following are the MPLS recovery requirements:
I. MPLS recovery SHALL provide an option to identify protection
groups (PPGs) and protection portions (PTPs).
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
II. Each PSL SHALL be capable of performing MPLS recovery upon the
detection of the impairments or upon receipt of notifications of
impairments.
III. A MPLS recovery method SHALL not preclude manual protection
switching commands. This implies that it would be possible under
administrative commands to transfer traffic from a working path to
a recovery path, or to transfer traffic from a recovery path to a
working path, once the working path becomes operational following a
fault.
IV. A PSL SHALL be capable of performing either a switch back to
the original working path after the fault is corrected or a
switchover to a new working path, upon the discovery of a more
optimal working path.
V. The recovery model should take into consideration path merging
at intermediate LSRs. If a fault affects the merged segment, all
the paths sharing that merged segment should be able to recover.
Similarly, if a fault affects a non-merged segment, only the path
that is affected by the fault should be recovered.
5.0 MPLS Recovery Options
There SHOULD be an option for:
I. Configuration of the recovery path as excess or reserved, with
excess as the default. The recovery path that is configured as
excess SHALL provide lower priority preemptable traffic access to
the protection bandwidth, while the recovery path configured as
reserved SHALL not provide any other traffic access to the
protection bandwidth.
II. Each protected path SHALL provide an option for configuring the
protection alternatives as either rerouting or protection
switching.
III. Each protected path SHALL provide a configuration option for
enabling restoration as either non-revertive or revertive, with
revertive as the default.
6.0 Comparison Criteria
Possible criteria to use for comparison of MPLS-based recovery
schemes are as follows:
Recovery Time
We define recovery time as the time required for a recovery path to
be activated (and traffic flowing) after a fault. Recovery Time is
the sum of the Fault Detection Time, Hold-off Time, Notification
Time, Recovery Operation Time, and the Traffic Restoration Time. In
other words, it is the time between a failure of a node or link in
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
the network and the time before a recovery path is installed and
the traffic starts flowing on it.
Full Restoration Time
We define full restoration time as the time required for a
permanent restoration. This is the time required for traffic to be
routed onto links, which are capable of or have been engineered
sufficiently to handle traffic in recovery scenarios. Note that
this time may or may not be different from the "Recovery Time"
depending on whether equivalent or limited recovery paths are used.
Backup Capacity
Recovery schemes may require differing amounts of "backup capacity"
in the event of a fault. This capacity will be dependent on the
traffic characteristics of the network. However, it may also be
dependent on the particular protection plan selection algorithms as
well as the signaling and re-routing methods.
Additive Latency
Recovery schemes may introduce additive latency to traffic. For
example, a recovery path may take many more hops than the working
path. This may be dependent on the recovery path selection
algorithms.
Quality of Protection
Recovery schemes can be considered to encompass a spectrum of
"packet survivability" which may range from "relative" to
"absolute. Relative survivability may mean that the packet is on an
equal footing with other traffic of, as an example, the same diff-
serv code point (DSCP) in contending for the surviving network
resources. Absolute survivability may mean that the survivability
of the protected traffic has explicit guarantees.
Re-ordering
Recovery schemes may introduce re-ordering of packets. Also the
action of putting traffic back on preferred paths might cause
packet re-ordering.
State Overhead
As the number of recovery paths in a protection plan grows, the
state required to maintain them also grows. Schemes may require
differing numbers of paths to maintain certain levels of coverage,
etc. The state required may also depend on the particular scheme
used to recover. In many cases the state overhead will be in
proportion to the number of recovery paths.
Loss
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
Recovery schemes may introduce a certain amount of packet loss
during switchover to a recovery path. Schemes that introduce loss
during recovery can measure this loss by evaluating recovery times
in proportion to the link speed.
In case of link or node failure a certain packet loss is
inevitable.
Coverage
Recovery schemes may offer various types of failover coverage. The
total coverage may be defined in terms of several metrics:
I. Fault Types: Recovery schemes may account for only link faults
or both node and link faults or also degraded service. For example,
a scheme may require more recovery paths to take node faults into
account.
II. Number of concurrent faults: dependent on the layout of
recovery paths in the protection plan, multiple fault scenarios may
be able to be restored.
III. Number of recovery paths: for a given fault, there may be one
or more recovery paths.
IV. Percentage of coverage: dependent on a scheme and its
implementation, a certain percentage of faults may be covered. This
may be subdivided into percentage of link faults and percentage of
node faults.
V. The number of protected paths may effect how fast the total set
of paths affected by a fault could be recovered. The ratio of
protected is n/N, where n is the number of protected paths and N is
the total number of paths.
7.0 Security Considerations
The MPLS recovery that is specified herein does not raise any
security issues that are not already present in the MPLS
architecture.
8.0 Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed
in regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights.
9.0 Acknowledgements
We would like to thank members of the MPLS WG mailing list for
their suggestions on the earlier version of this draft. In
particular, Bora Akyol, Dave Allan, and Neil Harrisson, whose
suggestions and comments were very helpful in revising the
document.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
10.0 AuthorsÆ Addresses
Vishal Sharma Ben Mack-Crane
Tellabs Research Center Tellabs Operations, Inc.
One Kendall Square 4951 Indiana Avenue
Bldg. 100, Ste. 121 Lisle, IL 60532
Cambridge, MA 02139-1562 Phone: 630-512-7255
Phone: 617-577-8760 Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com
Vishal.Sharma@tellabs.com
Srinivas Makam Ken Owens
Tellabs Operations, Inc. Tellabs Operations, Inc.
4951 Indiana Avenue 1106 Fourth Street
Lisle, IL 60532 St. Louis, MO 63126
Phone: 630-512-7217 Phone: 314-918-1579
Srinivas.Makam@tellabs.com Ken.Owens@tellabs.com
Changcheng Huang Fiffi Hellstrand
Dept. of Systems & Computer Engg. Nortel Networks
Carleton University St Eriksgatan 115
Minto Center, Rm. 3082 PO Box 6701
1125 Colonial By Drive 113 85 Stockholm, Sweden
Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada Phone: +46 8 5088 3687
Phone: 613 520-2600 x2477 Fiffi@nortelnetworks.com
Changcheng.Huang@sce.carleton.ca
Jon Weil Brad Cain
Nortel Networks Mirror Image Internet
Harlow Laboratories London Road 49 Dragon Ct.
Harlow Essex CM17 9NA, UK Woburn, MA 01801, USA
Phone: +44 (0)1279 403935 bcain@mirror-image.com
jonweil@nortelnetworks.com
Loa Andersson Bilel Jamoussi
Nortel Networks Nortel Networks
St Eriksgatan 115, PO Box 6701 3 Federal Street, BL3-03
113 85 Stockholm, Sweden Billerica, MA 01821, USA
Phone: +46 8 50 88 36 34 Phone:(978) 288-4506
loa.andersson@nortelnetworks.com jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com
Seyhan Civanlar Angela Chiu
Coreon, Inc. AT&T Labs, Rm. 4-204
1200 South Avenue, Suite 103 100 Schulz Drive
Staten Island, NY 10314 Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: (718) 889 4203 Phone: (732) 345-3441
scivanlar@coreon.net alchiu@att.com
11.0 References
[1] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and Callon, R., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-
mpls-arch-06.txt>, August 1999.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 29]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt September 2000
[2] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., Thomas, B.,
"LDP Specification", Work in Progress, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-
mpls-ldp-06.txt>, September 1999.
[3] Awduche, D. Hannan, A., and Xiao, X., "Applicability Statement for
Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-tunnel-
applicability-00.txt", work in progress, Sept. 1999.
[4] Jamoussi, B. "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", Work in
Progress, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-03.txt>, September
1999.
[5] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification",
RFC 2205, September 1997.
[6] Awduche, D. et al "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", Work in
Progress, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-04.txt,
September 1999.
[7] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., McManus, J.,
"Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", RFC 2702, September
1999.
[8] Andersson, L., Cain B., Jamoussi, B., "Requirement Framework for
Fast Re-route with MPLS", draft-andersson-reroute-frmwrk-00.txt, work
in progress, October 1999.
[9] Goguen, R. and Swallow, G., "RSVP Label Allocation for Backup
Tunnels", draft-swallow-rsvp-bypass-label-00.txt, work in progress,
October 1999.
[10] Makam, S., Sharma, V., Owens, K., Huang, C.,
"Protection/restoration of MPLS Networks", draft-makam-mpls-
protection-00.txt, work in progress, October 1999.
[11] Callon, R., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., Swallow, G.,
Viswanathan, A., "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching",
<draft-ietf-mpls-framework-05.txt>, Work in Progress, September 1999.
[12] Haskin, D. and Krishnan R., "A Method for Setting an Alternative
Label Switched Path to Handle Fast Reroute", draft-haskin-mpls-fast-
reroute-01.txt, 1999, Work in progress.
Makam, et al. Expires March 2000 [Page 30]