MPLS Working Group N. Leymann, Ed.
Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom AG
Intended status: Informational B. Decraene
Expires: November 30, 2011 France Telecom
C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems
M. Konstantynowicz
Juniper Networks
D. Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
May 29, 2011
Seamless MPLS Architecture
draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-00
Abstract
This documents describes an architecture which can be used to extend
MPLS networks to integrate access and aggregation networks into a
single MPLS domain ("Seamless MPLS"). The Seamless MPLS approach is
based on existing and well known protocols. It provides a highly
flexible and a scalable architecture and the possibility to integrate
100.000 of nodes. The separation of the service and transport plane
is one of the key elements; Seamless MPLS provides end to end service
independent transport. Therefore it removes the need for service
specific configurations in network transport nodes (without end to
end transport MPLS, some additional services nodes/configurations
would be required to glue each transport domain). This draft defines
a routing architecture using existing standardized protocols. It
does not invent any new protocols or defines extensions to existing
protocols.
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 http://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."
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
(http://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.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Why Seamless MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Use Case #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2. Typical Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. Use Case #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.2. Typical Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.2. Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.3. Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5. Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Multi-Domain MPLS networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4. Intra-Domain Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5. Inter-Domain Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Deployment Scenario #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.2. General Network Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.4. Intra-Area Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.4.1. Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.4.2. Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.5. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.5.1. LDP Downstream-on-Demand (DoD) . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.6. Inter-Area Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1.7. Labled iBGP next-hop handling . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.8. Network Availability and Simplicity . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.8.1. IGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.8.2. Per-Prefix LFA FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.8.3. Hierarchical Dataplane and BGP Prefix
Independent Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.8.4. Local Protection using Anycast BGP . . . . . . . . 26
5.1.8.5. Assessing loss of connectivity upon any failure . 31
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
5.1.8.6. Network Resiliency and Simplicity . . . . . . . . 36
5.1.8.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1.9. Next-Hop Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2. Scalability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.1. Control and Data Plane State for Deployment
Scenario #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.1.2. Core Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.2.1.3. Aggregation Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2.1.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.1.5. Numerical application for use case #1 . . . . . . 42
5.2.1.6. Numerical application for use case #2 . . . . . . 42
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
1. Introduction
MPLS as a mature and well known technology is widely deployed in
today's core and aggregation/metro area networks. Many metro area
networks are already based on MPLS delivering Ethernet services to
residential and business customers. Until now those deployments are
usually done in different domains; e.g. core and metro area networks
are handled as separate MPLS domains.
Seamless MPLS extends the core domain and integrates aggregation and
access domains into a single MPLS domain ("Seamless MPLS"). This
enables a very flexible deployment of an end to end service delivery.
In order to obtain a highly scalable architecture Seamless MPLS takes
into account that typical access devices (DSLAMs, MSAN) are lacking
some advanced MPLS features, and may have more scalability
limitations. Hence access devices are kept as simple as possible.
Seamless MPLS is not a new protocol suite but describes an
architecture by deploying existing protocols like BGP, LDP and ISIS.
Multiple options are possible and this document aims at defining a
single architecture for the main function in order to ease
implementation prioritization and deployments in multi vendor
networks. Yet the architecture should be flexible enough to allow
some level of personalization, depending on use cases, existing
deployed base and requirements. Currently, this document focus on
end to end unicast LSP.
1.1. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology
This document uses the following terminology
o Access Node (AN): An access node is a node which processes
customers frames or packets at Layer 2 or above. This includes
but is not limited to DSLAMs or OLTs (in case of (G)PON
deployments). Access nodes have only limited MPLS functionalities
in order to reduce complexity in the access network.
o Aggregation Node (AGN): An aggregation node (AGN) is a node which
aggregates several access nodes (ANs).
o Area Border Router (ABR): Router between aggregation and core
domain.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
o Deployment Scenario: Describes which an implementation of Seamless
MPLS in order to fullfil the requirements derived from one or more
use cases.
o Seamless MPLS Domain: A set of MPLS equipments which can set MPLS
LSPs between them.
o Transport Node (TN): Transport nodes are used to connect access
nodes to service nodes, and services nodes to services nodes.
Transport nodes ideally have no customer or service state and are
therefore decoupled from service creation.
o Seamless MPLS (S-MPLS): Used as a generic term to describe an
architecture which integrates access, aggregation and core network
in a single MPLS domain.
o Service Node (SN): A service node is used to create services for
customers and is connected to one or more transport nodes.
Typical examples include Broadband Network Gateways (BNGs), video
servers
o Transport Pseudo Wire (T-PW): A transport pseudowire provides
service independent transport mechanisms based on Pseudo-Wires
within the Seamless MPLS architecture.
o Use Case: Describes a typical network including service creation
points in order to describe the requirments, typical numbers etc.
which need to be taken into account when applying the Seamless
MPLS architecture.
2. Motivation
MPLS is deployed in core and aggregation network for several years
and provides a mature and stable basis for large networks. In
addition MPLS is already used in access networks, e.g. such as mobile
or DSL backhaul. Today MPLS as technology is being used on two
different layers:
o the Transport Layer and
o the Service Layer (e.g. for MPLS VPNs)
In both cases the protocols and the encapsulation are identical but
the use of MPLS is different especially concerning the signalling,
the control plane, the provisioning, the scalability and the
frequency of updates. On the service layer only service specific
information is exchanged; every service can potentially deploy it's
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
own architecture and individual protocols. The services are running
on top of the transport layer. Nevertheless those deployments are
usually isolated, focussed on a single use case and not integrated
into an end-to-end manner.
The motivation of Seamless MPLS is to provide an architecture which
supports a wide variety of different services on a single MPLS
platform fully integrating access, aggregation and core network. The
architecture can be used for residential services, mobile backhaul,
business services and supports fast reroute, redundancy and load
balancing. Seamless MPLS provides the deployment of service creation
points which can be virtually everywhere in the network. This
enables network and service providers with a flexible service and
service creation. Service creation can be done based on the existing
requirements without the needs for dedicated service creation areas
on fixed locations. With the flexibility of Seamless MPLS the
service creation can be done anywhere in the network and easily moved
between different locations.
2.1. Why Seamless MPLS
Multiple SP plan to deploy networks with 10k to 100k MPLS nodes.
This is typically at least one order of magnitude higher than typical
deployments and may require a new architecture. Multiple options are
possible and it makes sense for the industry (both vendors and SP) to
restrict the options in order to ease the first deployments (e.g.
restrict the number of options to implement and/or scales for
vendors, reduce interoperability and debugging issues for SP).
Many aggregation networks are already deploying MPLS but are limited
to the use of MPLS per aggregation area. Those MPLS based
aggregation domains are connected to a core network running MPLS as
well. Nevertheless most of the services are not limited to an
aggregation domain but running between several aggregation domains
crossing the core network. In the past it was necessary to provide
connectivity between the different domains and the core on a per
service level and not based on MPLS (e.g. by deploying native IP-
Routing or Ethernet based technologies between aggregation and core).
In most cases service specific configurations on the border nodes
between core and aggregation were required. New services led to
additional configurations and changes in the provisioning tools (see
Figure 1).
With Seamless MPLS there are no technology boundaries and no topology
boundaries for the services. Network (or region) boundaries are for
scaling and manageability, and do not affect the service layer, since
the Transport Pseudowire that carries packets from the AN to the SN
doesn't care whether it takes two hops or twenty, nor how many region
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
boundaries it needs to cross. The network architecture is about
network scaling, network resilience and network manageability; the
service architecture is about optimal delivery: service scaling,
service resilience (via replicated SNs) and service manageability.
The two are decoupled: each can be managed separately and changed
independently.
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| Aggregation | | Core | | Aggregation |
| Domain #1 +---------+ Domain +---------+ Domain #2 |
| MPLS | ^ | MPLS | ^ | MPLS |
+--------------+ | +--------------+ | +--------------+
| |
+------ service specific ------+
configuration
Figure 1: Service Specific Configurations
One of the main motivations of Seamless MPLS is to get rid of
services specific configurations between the different MPLS islands.
Seamless MPLS connects all MPLS domains on the MPLS transport layer
providing a single transport layer for all services - independent of
the service itself. The Seamless MPLS architecture therefore
decuples the service and transport layer and integrates access,
aggregation and core into a single platform. One of the big
advantages is that problems on the transport layer only need to be
solved once (and the solutions are available to all services). With
Seamless MPLS it is not necessary to use service specific
configurations on intermediate nodes; all services can be deployed in
an end to end manner.
2.2. Use Case #1
2.2.1. Description
In most cases at least residential and business services need to be
supported by a network. This section describes a Seamless MPLS use
case which supports such a scenario. The use case includes point to
point services for business customers as well as typical service
creation for residential customers.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
+-------------+
| Service |
| Creation |
| Residential |
| Customers |
+------+------+
|
|
|
PW1 +-------+ +---+---+
######################### |
# +--+ AGN11 +---+ AGN21 + +------+
# / | | /| |\ | | +--------+
+--#-+/ +-------+\/ +-------+ \| | | remote |
| AN | /\ + CORE +---......--+ AN |
+--#-+\ +-------+ \+-------+ /| | ####### |
# \ | | | |/################### +--------+
# +--+ AGN12 +---+ AGN22 +##+------+ P2P Business Service
##############################
PW2 +-------+ +-------+
Figure 2: Use Case #1: Service Creation
Figure 2 shows the different service creation points and the
corresponding pseudowires between the access nodes and the service
creation points. The use case does not show all PWs (e.g. not the
PWs needed to support redundancy) in order to keep the figure simple.
Node and link failures are handled by rerouting the PWs (based on
standard mechanisms). End customers (either residential or business
customers) are connected to the access nodes using a native
technology like Ethernet. The access nodes terminates the PW(s)
carrying the traffic for the end customers. The link between the
access node (AN) and the aggregation node (AGN) is the first MPLS
enabled link.
Residential Services: The service creation for all residential
customers connected to the Access Nodes in an aggregation domain
is located on an Service Node connected to the AGN2x. The PW
(PW1) originated at the AN and terminates at the AGN2. A second
PW is deployed in the case where redundancy is needed on the AN
(the figure shows redundancy but this might not be the case for
all ANs in this Use Case). Additonal PWs can be deployed as well
in case more than a single service creation is needed for the
residential service (e.g. one service creation point for Internet
access and a second service creation point for IPTV services).
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
Business Sercvices: For business services the use cases shows point
to point connections between two access nodes. PW2 originates at
the AN and terminates on the remote AN crossing two aggregation
areas and the core network. If the access node needs connections
to several remote ANs the corresponding number of PWs will be
originated at the AN. Nevertheless taking the number of ports
available and the number of business customers on a typical access
node the number of PWs will be relatively small.
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
+--+ AGN11 +---+ AGN21 +---+ ABR1 +---+ LSR1 +--> to AGN
/ | | /| | | | | |
+----+/ +-------+\/ +-------+ +------+ /+------+
| AN | /\ \/
+----+\ +-------+ \+-------+ +------+/\ +------+
\ | | | | | | \| |
+--+ AGN12 +---+ AGN22 +---+ ABR2 +---+ LSR2 +--> to AGN
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
static route ISIS L1 LDP ISIS L2 LDP
<-Access-><--Aggregation Domain--><---------Core--------->
Figure 3: Use Case #1: Redundancy
Figure 3 shows the redundancy at the access and aggregation network
deploying a two stage aggregation network (AGN1x/AGN2x).
Nevertheless redundancy is not a MUST in this use case. It is also
possible to use non redundant connection between the ANs and AGN1
stage and/or between the AGN1 and AGN2 stages. The AGN2x stage is
used to aggregate traffic from several AGN1x pairs. In this use case
an aggregation domain is not limited to the use of a single pair of
AGN2x; the deployment of several AGN2 pairs within the domain is also
supported. As design goal for the scalability of the routing and
forwarding within the Seamless MPLS architecture the following
numbers are used:
o Number of Aggregation Domains: 100
o Number of Backbone Nodes: 1.000
o Number of Aggregation Nodes: 10.000
o Number of Access Nodes: 100.000
The access nodes (AN) are dual homed to two different aggregation
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
nodes (AGN11 and AGN12) using static routing entries on the AN. The
ANs are always source or sink nodes for MPLS traffic but not transit
nodes. This allows a light MPLS implementation in order to reduce
the complexity in the AN. The aggregation network consists of two
stages with redundant connections between the stages (AGN11 is
connected to AGN21 and AGN22 as well as AGN12 to AGN21 and AGN22).
The gateway between the aggregation and core network is realized
using the Area Border Routers (ABR). From the perspective of the
MPLS transport layer all systems are clearly identified using the
loopback address of the system. An ingress node must be able to
establish a service to an arbitrary egress system by using the
corresponding MPLS transport label
2.2.2. Typical Numbers
Table 1 shows typical numbers which are expected for Use Case #1
(access node).
+-------------------+---------------+
| Parameter | Typical Value |
+-------------------+---------------+
| IGP Control Plane | 2 |
| IP FIB | 2 |
| LDP Control Plane | 200 |
| LDP FIB | 200 |
| BGP Control Plane | 0 |
| BGP FIB | 0 |
+-------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Use Case #1: Typical Numbers for Access Node
2.3. Use Case #2
2.3.1. Description
In most cases, residential, wholesales and business services need to
be supported by the network.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
+-------------+
| Service |
| platforms |
|(VoIP, VoD..)|
| Residential |
| Customers |
+------+------+
|
|
+---+ +-----+ +--+--+ +-----+
|AN1|----+AGN11+--+AGN21+---+ ABR |
+---+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| | |
+---+ +--+--+ | | +----+
|AN2|----+AGN12+ | | --+ PE |
+---+ +--+--+ | | +----+
| | |
. | |
. | |
. | |
| | |
+---+ +---+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
|AN4+---+AN3|----+AGN1x+--+AGN22+---+ ABR |
+---+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
<-Access-><--Aggregation Domain--><---------Core--------->
Figure 4: Use Case #2
The above topology (see Figure 4) is subject to evolutions, depending
on AN types and capacities (in terms of number of customers and/or
aggregated bandwidth). For examples, AGN1x connection toward AGN2y
currently forms a ring but may latter evolve in a square or triangle
topology; AGN2y nodes may not be present...
Most access nodes (AN) are single attached on one aggregation node
using static routing entries on the AN and AGN. Some AN, are dual
attached on two different AGN using static routes. Some AN are used
as transit by some lower level AN. Static routes are expected to be
used between those AN.
IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS interconnection between the aggregation and core
network is realized using the Area Border Routers (ABR). Any ingress
node must be able to establish IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS connections to any
egress node in the seamless MPLS domain.
Regarding MPLS connectivity requirements, a full mesh of MPLS LSPs is
required between the ANs of an aggregation area, at least for 6PE
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
purposes. Some additional LSPs are needed between ANs and some PE in
the aggregation area or in the core area for access to services,
wholesale and enterprises services. In short, a meshing of LSP is
required between the AGN of the whole seamless MPLS domain. Finally,
LSP between any node to any node should be possible.
From a scalability standpoint, the following numbers are the targets:
o Number of Aggregation Domains: 30
o Number of Backbone Nodes: 150
o Number of Aggregation Nodes: 1.500
o Number of Access Nodes: 40.000
2.3.2. Typical Numbers
Table 2 shows typical numbers which are expected for Use Case #2 for
the purpose of establishing the transport LSPs. They do not take
into account the services built in addition. (e.g. 6PE will require
additional IPv6 routes).
+-------------------+---------------+
| Parameter | Typical Value |
+-------------------+---------------+
| IGP Control Plane | 2 |
| IP FIB | 2 |
| LDP Control Plane | 1000 |
| LDP FIB | 1000 |
+-------------------+---------------+
Table 2: Use Case #2: Typical Numbers for Access Node
3. Requirements
The following section describes the overall requirements which need
to be fulfilled by the Seamless MPLS architecture. Beside the
general requirements of the architecture itself there are also
certain requirements which are related to the different network
nodes.
o End to End Transport LSP: MPLS based services (pseudowire based,
L3-VPN or IP) SHALL be provided by the Seamless MPLS based
infrastructure between any nodes.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
o Scalability: The network SHALL be scalable to the minimum of
100.000 nodes.
o Fast convergence (sub second resilience) SHALL be supported. Fast
reroute (LFA) SHOULD be supported.
o Flexibility: The Seamless MPLS architecture SHALL be applied to a
wide variety of existing MPLS deployments. It SHALL use a
flexible approach deploying building blocks with the possiblity to
use certain features only if those features are needed (e.g. dual
homing ANs or fast reroute mechanisms).
o Service independence: Service and transport layer SHALL be
decoupled. The architecture SHALL remove the need for service
specific configurations on intermediate nodes.
o Native Multicast support: P2MP MPLS LSPs SHOULD be supported by
the Seamless MPLS architecture.
o Interoperable end to end OAM mechanisms SHALL be implemented
3.1. Overall
3.1.1. Access
In respect of MPLS functionality the access network should be kept as
simple as possible. Compared to the aggregation and/or core network
within Seamless MPLS a typical access node is less powerful. The
control plane and the forwarding should be as simple as possible. To
reduce the complexity and the costs of an access node not the full
MPLS functionality need to be supported (control and data plane).
The use of an IGP should be avoided. Static routing should be
sufficient. Required functionality to reach the required scalability
should be moved out of the access node. The number of access nodes
can be very high. The support of load balancing for layer 2 services
should be implemented.
3.1.2. Aggregation
The aggregation network aggregates traffic from access nodes. The
aggregation Node must have functionalities that enlarge the
scalability of the simple access nodes that are connected. The IGP
must be link state based. Each aggregation area must be a separated
area. All routes that are interarea should use an EGP to keep the
IGP small. The aggregation node must have the full scalability
concerning control plane and forwarding. The support of load
balancing for layer 2 services must be implemented.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
3.1.3. Core
The core connects the aggregation areas. The core network elements
must have the full scalability concerning control plane and
forwarding. The IGP must be link state based. The core area must
not include routes from aggregation areas. All routes that are
interarea should use an EGP to keep the IGP small. Each area of the
link state based IGP should have less than 2000 routes. The support
of load balancing for layer 2 services must be implemented.
3.2. Multicast
Compared with unicast connectivity Multicast is more dynamic. User
generated messages - like joining or leaving multicast groups - are
interacting directly with network components in the access and
aggregation network (in order to build the corresponding forwarding
states). This leads to the need for a highly dynamic handling of
messages on access and aggregation nodes. Nevertheless the core
network SHOULD be stable and state changes triggered by user
generated messages SHOULD be minimized. This rises the need for an
hierarchy for the P2MP support in Seamless MPLS hiding the dynamic
behaviour of the access and aggregation nodes
o mLDP
o P2MP RSVP-TE
3.3. Availability
All network elements should be high available (99.999% availability).
Outage times should be as low as possible. A repair time of 50
milliseconds or less should be guarantied at all nodes and lines in
the network that are redundant. Fast convergence features SHOULD be
used in all control plane protocols. Local Repair functions SHOULD
be used wherever possible. Full redundancy is required at all
equipment that is shared in a network element.
o Power Supply
o Switch Fabric
o Routing Processor
A change from an active component to a standby component SHOULD
happen without effecting customers traffic. The Influence of
customer traffic MUST be as low as possible.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
3.4. Scalability
The network must be highly scalable. As a minimum requirement the
following scalability figures should be met:
o Number of aggregation domains: 100
o Number of backbone nodes: 1.000
o Number of aggregation nodes: 10.000
o Number of access nodes: 100.000
3.5. Stability
o The platform should be stable under certain circumstances (e.g.
missconfiguration within one area should not cause instability in
other areas).
o Differentiate between "All Loopbacks and Link addresses should be
ping able from every where." Vs. "Link addresses are not
necessary ping able from everywhere".
4. Architecture
4.1. Overall
One of the key questions that emerge when designing an architecture
for a seamless MPLS network is how to handle the sheer size of the
necessary routing and MPLS label information control plane and
forwarding plane state resulting from the stated scalability goals
especially with respect to the total number of access nodes. This
needs to be done without overwhelming the technical scaling limits of
any of the involved nodes in the network (access, aggregation and
core) and without introducing too much complexity in the design of
the network while at the same time still maintaining good convergence
properties to allow for quick MPLS transport and service restoration
in case of network failures.
4.2. Multi-Domain MPLS networks
The key design paradigm that leads to a sound and scalable solution
is the divide and conquer approach, whereby the large problem is
decomposed into many smaller problems for which the solution can be
found using well-known standard architectures.
In the specific case of seamless MPLS the overall MPLS network SHOULD
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
be decomposed into multiple MPLS domains, each well within the
scaling limits of well-known architectures and network node
implementations. From an organizational and operational point of
view it MAY make sense to define the boundaries of such domains along
the pre-existing boundaries of aggregation networks and the core
network.
Examples of how networks can be decomposed include using IGP areas as
well as using multiple BGP autonomous systems.
4.3. Hierarchy
These MPLS domains SHOULD then be then be connected into an MPLS
multi-domain network in a hierarchical fashion that enables the
seamless exchange of loopback addresses and MPLS label bindings for
transport LSPs across the entire MPLS internetwork while at the same
time preventing the flooding of unnecessary routing and label binding
information into domains or parts of the network that do not need
them. Such a hierarchical routing and forwarding concept allows a
scalability in different dimensions and allows to hide the complexity
and size of the aggregation and access networks.
4.4. Intra-Domain Routing
The intra-domain routing within each of the MPLS domains (i.e.
aggregation domains and core) SHOULD utilize standard IGP protocols
like OSPF or ISIS. By definition, each of these domains is small
enough so that there are no relevant scaling limits within each IGP
domain, given well-known state-of-the-art IGP design principles and
recent router technology.
The intra-domain MPLS LSP setup and label distribution SHOULD utilize
standard protocols like LDP or RSVP.
4.5. Inter-Domain Routing
The inter-domain routing is responsible for establishing connectivity
between and across all MPLS domains. The inter-domain routing SHOULD
establish a routing and forwarding hierarchy in order to achieve the
scaling goals of seamless MPLS. Note that the IP aggregation usually
performed between region (IGP areas/AS) in IP routing does not work
for MPLS as MPLS is not capable of aggregating FEC (because MPLS
forwarding use an exact match lookup, while IP uses longest match).
Therefore it is RECOMMENDED to utilize protocols that support
indirect next-hops (like BGP with MPLS labels "labled BGP/SAFI4"
[RFC3107]).
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
4.6. Access
Compared to the aggregation and core parts of the Seamless MPLS
network the access part is special in two respects:
o The number of ndes in the access is at least one order of
magnitude higher than in any other part of the network.
o Because of the large quantity of access nodes, the cost of these
nodes is extremly relevant for the overall costs of the entire
network, i.e. acess nodes are very cost sensitive.
This makes it desirable to design the architecture such that the AN
functionality can be kept as simple as possible. This should always
be kept in mind when evalulating different seamless MPLS
architectures. The goal is to limit both the number of different
protocols needed on the AN as well as the scale to which each
protocol must perform to the absolute minimum.
5. Deployment Scenarios
This section describes the deployment scenarios based on the use
cases and the generic architecture above.
5.1. Deployment Scenario #1
Section describing the Seamless MPLS implementation of a large
european ISP.
5.1.1. Overview
This deployment scenario describes one way to implement a seamless
MPLS architecture. Specific to this implementation is the choice of
intra- and inter-domain routing and label distribution protocols, as
well as the details of the interworking of these protocols to achieve
the overall scalable hierarchical architecture.
5.1.2. General Network Topology
There are multiple aggregation domains (in the order of up to 100)
connected to the core in a star topology, i.e. aggregation domains
are never connected among themselves, but only to the core. The core
has its own domain.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
+--+ AGN11 +---+ AGN21 +---+ ABR1 +---+ LSR1 +--> to AGN
/ | | /| | | | | |
+----+/ +-------+\/ +-------+ +------+ /+------+
| AN | /\ \/ |
+----+\ +-------+ \+-------+ +------+/\ +------+
\ | | | | | | \| |
+--+ AGN12 +---+ AGN22 +---+ ABR2 +---+ LSR2 +--> to AGN
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
static route ISIS L1 LDP ISIS L2 LDP
<-Access-><--Aggregation Domain--><---------Core--------->
Figure 5: Deployment Scenario #1
As shown in Figure 5, the access nodes (AN) are connected to the
aggregation network via aggregation nodes called AGN1x, either to a
single AGN1x or redundantly to two AGN1x. Each AGN1x has redundant
uplinks to a pair of second-level aggregation nodes called AGN2x.
Each aggregation domain is connected to the core via exactly two
border routers (ABR) on the core side. There can be multiple AGN2
pairs per aggregation domain, but only one ABR pair for each
aggregation domain. Each of the AGN2 in an AGN2 pair connects to one
of the ABRs in the ABR pair responsible for that aggregation domain.
The ABRs on the core side have redundant connections to a pair of LSR
routers.
The LSR pair is also connected via a direct link.
The core LSR are connected to other core LSR in a partly meshed
topology so that there are disjunct, redundant paths from each LSR to
each other LSR.
5.1.3. Hierarchy
As explained before, hierarchy is the key to a scalable seamless MPLS
architecture. The hierarchy in this implementation is achieved by
forming different MPLS domains for aggregation domains and core,
where within each of these domains a fairly common MPLS deployment
using ISIS as intradomain link-state routing protocol and using LDP
for MPLS label distribution is used.
These MPLS domains are mapped to ISIS areas as follows: Aggregation
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
domains are mapped to ISIS L1 areas. The core is configured as ISIS
L2. The border routers connecting aggregation and core are ISIS L1L2
and are referred to as ABRs. From a technical and operational point
of view these ABRs are part of the core, althought they also belong
to the respective aggregation domain purely from a routing protocol
point of view.
For the interdomain-routing BGP with MPLS labels is deployed ("labled
BGP/SAFI4" [RFC3107]).
5.1.4. Intra-Area Routing
5.1.4.1. Core
The core uses ISIS L2 to distribute routing information for the
loopback addresses of all core nodes. The border routers (ABR) that
connect to the aggregation domains are also part of the respective
aggregation ISIS L1 area and hence ISIS L1L2.
LDP is used to distribute MPLS label binding information for the
loopback addresses of all core nodes.
5.1.4.2. Aggregation
The aggregation domains uses ISIS L1 as intra-domain routing
protocol. All AGN loopback addresses are carried in ISIS.
As in the core, the aggregation also uses LDP to distribute MPLS
label bindings for the loopback addresses.
5.1.5. Access
Access nodes do not have their own domain or IGP area. Instead, they
directly connect to the AGN1 nodes in the aggregation domain. To
keep access devices as simple as possible, ANs do not participate in
ISIS.
Instead, each AN has two static default routes pointing to each of
the AGN1 it is connected to. Appropriate techniques SHOULD be
deployed to make sure that a given default route is invalidated when
the link to an AGN1 or that node itself fails. Examples of such
techniques include monitoring the pysical link state for loss of
light/loss of frame, or using Ethernet link OAM or BFD
[I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop].
The AGN1 MUST have a configured static route to the loopback address
of each of the ANs it is connected to, because it cannot learn the AN
loopback address in any other way. These static routes have to be
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
monitored and invalidated if necessary using the same techniques as
described above for the static default routes on the AN.
The AGN1 redistributes these routes into ISIS for intra-domain
reachability of all AN loopback addresses.
LDP is used for MPLS label distribution between AGN1 and AN. In
order to keep the AN control plane as lightweight as possible, and to
avoid the necessity for the AN to store 100.000 MPLS label bindings
for each upstream AGN1 peer, LDP is deployed in downstream-on-demand
(DoD) mode, described below.
To allow the label bindings received via LDP DoD to be installed into
the LFIB on the AN without having the specific host route to the
destination loopback address, but only a default route, use of the
LDP Extension for Inter-Area Label Switched Paths [RFC5283] is made.
5.1.5.1. LDP Downstream-on-Demand (DoD)
LDP downstream-on-demand mode is specified in [RFC5036]. Although it
was originally intended to be used with ATM switch hardware, there is
nothing from a protocol perspective preventing its use in a regular
MPLS frame-based environment. In this mode the upstream LSR will
explicitly ask the downstream LSR for a label binding for a
particular FEC when needed.
The assumption is that a given AN will only have a limited number of
services configured to an even more limited number of destinations,
or egress LER. Instead of learning and storing all label bindings
for all possible loopback addresses within the entire Seamless MPLS
network, the AN will use LDP DoD to only request the label bindings
for the FECs corresponding to the loopback addresses of those egress
nodes to which it has services configured.
For LDP DoD the AGN1 MUST also ask the AN for label bindings for
specific FECs. FECs are necessary for all pseudowire destinations at
the AN. Most preferable this pseudowire destination is the LSR-ID of
the AN. Depending on the AN implementation and architecture multiple
pseudowire destination addresses and associated FECs could be needed.
The conclusion of this results to the following requirement:
o The AGN1 MUST ask the AN for label bindings for all potential
pseudowire destination addresses on the AN. Because the AGN (at
least in many cases) does not take part in the pseudowire
signaling an independent way of receiving the AN FEC is necessary
on the AGN. These potential pseudowire destinations MUST be known
on the AGN1, by configuration or otherwise. These are typically
the loopback addresses of the AN, to which a static route has been
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
configured anyway on the AGN1, as explained above. In addition to
these static routes, the AGN1 SHOULD be configured statically to
request MPLS label bindings for these loopback addresses via LDP
DoD.
o Optionally an automatism that asks for a FEC for the LSR-ID COULD
be implemented. A configuration switch that disables this option
must be implemented. The label is necessary. The way of
initiating the DoD-signaling of the label could be done with both
methods (configuration/automatism).
o The AN knows by configuration to which destination a pseudowire is
set up. The AN is always the endpoint of the pseudowire. Before
signalling a pseudowire the AN MUST ask (via LDP DoD) the AGN for
a FEC. Because of this an independent preconfiguration is not
necessary on the AN.
o The following are the triggers for ANs to request a label:
o
* When a control session (targeted LDP) to a target has to be
established
* When a service label has been received by a control session
(e.g. pseudo wire label)
5.1.6. Inter-Area Routing
The inter-domain MPLS connectivity from the aggregation domains to
and across the core domain is realized primarily using BGP with MPLS
labels ("labled BGP/SAFI4" [RFC3107]). A very limited amount of
route leaking from ISIS L2 into L1 is also used.
All ABR and PE nodes in the core are part of the labeled iBGP mesh,
which can be either full mesh or based on route reflectors. These
nodes advertise their respective loopback addresses (which are also
carried in ISIS L2) into labeled BGP.
Each ABR node has labeled iBGP sessions with all AGN1 nodes inside
the aggregation domain that they connect to the core. Since there
are two ABR nodes per aggregation domain, this leads to each AGN1
node having an iBGP sessions with each of the two ABR. Note that the
use of iBGP implies that the entire seamless MPLS internetwork is
just a single AS to which all core and aggregation nodes belong. The
AGN1 nodes advertise their own loopback addresses into labeled BGP,
in addition to these loopbacks also being in ISIS L1.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
Additionally the AGN1 nodes also redistribute all the statically
configured routes to the AN loopback addresses into labeled BGP.
Note that as stated obove, the AGN1 MUST ask the AN for label
bindings for the AN loopback FECs via LDP DoD in order to have a
valid labeled route with a non-null label.
This architecture results in carrying all loopbacks of all nodes
except pure P nodes (AN, AGN, ABR and core PE) in labeled BGP, e.g.
there will be in the order of 100.000 routes in labeled BGP when
approaching the stated scalability goal. Note that this only affects
the BGP RIB size and does not necessarily imply that any node needs
to actually have active forwarding state (LFIB) in the same order of
magnitude. In fact, as will be discussed in the scalability
analysis, no single node needs to install all labeled BGP routes into
the LFIB, but each node only needs a small percentage of the RIB as
active forwarding state in the LFIB. And from a RIB point of view,
BGP is known to scale to hundreds of thousands of routes.
5.1.7. Labled iBGP next-hop handling
The ABR nodes run labeled iBGP both to the core mesh as well as to
the AGN1 nodes of their respective aggregation domains. Therefore
they operate as iBGP route reflectors, reflecting labeled routes from
the aggregation into the core and vice versa.
When reflecting routes from the core into the aggregation domain, the
ABR SHOULD NOT change the BGP NEXT-HOP addresses (next-hop-
unchanged). This is the usual behaviour for iBGP route reflection.
In order to make these routes resolvable to the AGN1 nodes inside the
aggregation domain, the ABR MUST leak all other ABR and core PE
loopback addresses from ISIS L2 into ISIS L1 of the aggregation
domain. Note that the number of leaked addresses is limited so that
the overall scalability of the seamless MPLS architecture is not
impacted. In the worst case all core loopback addresses COULD be
leaked into ISIS L1, but even that would not be a scalability
problem.
When reflecting routes from the aggregation into the core, the ABR
MUST set then BGP NEXT-HOP to its own loopback addresses (next-hop-
self). This is not the default behaviour for iBGP route reflection,
but requires special configuration on the ABR. Note that this also
implies that the ABR MUST allocate a new local MPLS label for each
labeled iBGP FEC that it reflects from the aggregation into the core.
This special next-hop handling is essential for the scalability of
the overall seamless MPLS architecture since it creates the required
hierarchy and enables the hiding of all aggregation and access
addresses behind the ABRs from an IGP point of view. Leaking of
aggregation ISIS L1 loopback addresses into ISIS L2 is not necessary
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
and MUST NOT be allowed.
The resulting hierarchical inter-domain MPLS routing structure is
similar to the one described in [RFC4364] section 10c, only that we
use one AS with route reflection instead of using multiple ASes.
5.1.8. Network Availability and Simplicity
The seamless mpls architecture illustrated in deployment case study 1
guarantees a sub-second loss of connectivity upon any link or node
failures. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases, the loss of
connectivity is limited to sub-50msec.
These network availability properties are provided without any
degradation on scale and simplicity. This is a key achievement of
the design.
In the remainder of this section, we first introduce the different
network availability technologies and then review their applicability
for each possible failure scenario.
5.1.8.1. IGP Convergence
IGP convergence can be modelled as a linear process with an initial
delay and a linear FIB update [ACM01].
The initial delay could conservatively be assumed to be 260msec:
50msec to detect failures with BFD (most failures would be detected
faster with loss of light for example or with faster BFD timers),
50msec to throttle the LSP generation, 150msec to throttle the SPF
computation (making sure than all the required LSP's are received
even in case of SRLG failures) and 10msec for shortest-path-first
tree computation.
Assuming 250usec per update (conservative), this allows for (1000-
260)/0.250= 2960 prefixes update within a second following the
outage. More precisely, this allows for 2960 important IGP prefixes
updates. Important prefixes are automatically classified by the
router implementation through simple heuristic (/32 is more important
than non-/32).
The number of IGP important routes (loopbacks) in deployment case
study 1 is much smaller than 2960, and hence sub-second IGP
convergence is conservative.
IGP convergence is a simple technology for the operator provided that
the router vendor optimizes the default IGP behavior (no need to tune
any arcane knob).
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
5.1.8.2. Per-Prefix LFA FRR
A per-prefix LFA for a destination D is a precomputed backup IGP
nexthop for that destination. This backup IGP nexthop can be link
protecting or node protecting [RFC5286].
The analysis of the applicability of Per-Prefix LFA in the deployment
model 1 of Seamless MPLS architecture is straightforward thanks to
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability].
In deployment model 1, each aggregation network either follows the
triangle or full-mesh topology. Further more, the backbone region
implements a dual-plane. As a consequence, the failure of any link
or node within an aggregation domain is protected by LFA FRR (sub-
50msec) for all impacted IGP prefixes, whether intra-area or inter-
area. No uloop may form as a result of these failures
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability].
Per-Prefix LFA FRR is generally assessed as a simple technology for
the operator [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability]. It certainly is
in the context of deployment case study 1 as the designer enforced
triangle and full-mesh topologies in the aggregation network as well
as a dual-plane core network.
5.1.8.3. Hierarchical Dataplane and BGP Prefix Independent Convergence
In a hierarchical dataplane, the FIB used by the packet processing
engine reflects the recursions between routes. For example, a BGP
route B recursing on IGP route I whose best path is via interface O
is encoded as a FIB entry B pointing to a FIB entry I pointing to a
FIB entry 0.
Hierarchical FIB [BGPPIC] extends the hierarchical dataplane with the
concept of a BGP Path-List. A BGP path-list may be abstracted as a
set of primary multipath nhops and a backup nhop. When the primary
set is empty, packets destined to the BGP destinations are rerouted
via the backup nhop.
With hierarchical FIB and hierarchical dataplane, a FIB entry
representing a BGP route points to a FIB entry representing a BGP
Path-List. This entry may either point again to another BGP Path
list entry (BGP over BGP recursion) or more likely points to a FIB
entry representing an IGP route.
A BGP Path-list may be computed automatically by the router and does
not require any operator involvement. Specifically, the automated
computation adapts to any routing policy (this is key to understand
the simplicity of hierarchical FIB and the ability to enable it as a
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
default router behavior). There is no constraint at all on the
operator design. Any policy is supported (multipath, primary/backup
between neighboring domains or via alternate domains).
The BGP backup nhop is computed in advance of any failure (ie. a
second bestpath computation after excluding the primary nhops).
Hierarchical dataplane and hierarchical FIB provide two important
routing availability properties.
First, upon IGP convergence, recursive BGP routes immediately benefit
from the updated IGP paths thanks to the dataplane indirection. This
is key as most of the traffic is destined to BGP routes, not to IGP
routes.
Second, upon loss of the primary BGP nhop, the dataplane can
immediately reroute the packets towards the pre-computed backup nhop.
This redirection is said to be prefix independent as the only entries
that need to be modified are the BGP path-lists. These entries are
shared across all the BGP prefixes with the same primary and backup
next-hops. This scale independence is key. In the context of
deployment model 1, while there might be 100k BGP routes, we only
expect on the order of 200 BGP path-lists. Assuming 10usec in-place
modification per BGP path-list, we see that the router can enable the
backup path for 100k BGP destinations in less than 2msec (less than
200 * 10usec).
The detection of the loss of the primary BGP nhop (and hence the need
to enable the pre-computed backup BGP nhop) can be local (a local
link failing between an edge device and a single-hop eBGP peer) or
involves an IGP convergence (a remote border router goes down).
These hierarchical FIB properties benefit to any BGP routes:
Internet, L3VPN, 3107, IPv4 or IPv6. Future evolution of VPLS will
also benefit from such properties [I-D.raggarwa-mac-vpn],
[I-D.sajassi-l2vpn-rvpls-bgp]
Hierarchical forwarding and hierarchical FIB are very simple
technology to operate. Their ability to adapt to any topology, any
routing policy and any BGP address family allows router vendors to
enable this behavior by default.
5.1.8.4. Local Protection using Anycast BGP
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
5.1.8.4.1. Anycast BGP applied to ABR node failure
In this section we described a mechanism that provides local
protection for area border router (ABR) failures. To illustrate this
mechanism consider an example shown in Figure 6.
+-------+
| |
vl0+ ABR 1 |
/| |
+----------+ +-------+ / +-------+
| | | |/
| PE / LER +-..-+ PLR |
| | | |\
+----------+ +-------+ \ +-------+
\| |
vl0+ ABR 2 |
| |
+-------+
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| LDP-L +-----+ LDP-L +-----+ LDP-L |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| BGP-L +-------------------+ BGP-L |
+-------+ +-------+
--------------- traffic ---------------->
<----- routing + label distribution -----
Figure 6: Routing and Traffic Flow
The core router adjacent to ABR1 and ABR2 acts as a point of local
repair (PLR). When the PLR detects ABR1 failure, the PLR re-routes
to ABR2 the traffic that the PLR used to forward to ABR1, with ABR2
providing the subsequent forwarding for this traffic. To accomplish
this ABR1, ABR2, and the PLR employ the following procedures.
ABR1, in addition to its own loopback, is provisioned with another IP
address (vl0). This IP address is used to identify the forwarding
state/context on ABR1 that is the subject to the local protection
mechanism outlined in this section. We refer to this IP address,
vl0, as the "context identifier". ABR1 advertises its context
identifier in ISIS and LDP. As ABR1 re-advertises to its core peers
the BGP routes it receives from its peers in the aggregation
domain(s), ABR1 sets the BGP Next Hop on these routes to its context
identifier (this creates an association between the forwarding state/
context created by these routes and the context identifier).
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
ABR2, acting as a protector for ABR1, is configured with the ABR1's
context identifier. ABR2 advertises this context identifier into LDP
and ISIS. The LDP advertisement is done with no PHP and a non-null
label, and the ISIS advertisement is done with a very high metric.
As a result, the PLR would have an LFA route/LSP to this context
identifier with ABR2 as the next hop. When the PLR detects ABR1's
failure, the LFA procedures on the PLR would result in sending to
ABR2 the traffic that the PLR used to forward to ABR1. Moreover,
since ABR2 advertises into LDP a non-null label for the ABR1's
context identifier, this label would enable ABR2 to identify such
traffic (as we'll see further down the ability to identify such
traffic is essential in order for ABR2 to correctly forward this
traffic).
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
+-----------------+-----------+-----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.1/32 | Label 200 | NH AGN2-1 |
+-----------------+-----------+-----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.2/32 | Label 233 | NH AGN2-1 | ABR1
+-----------------+-----------+-----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.3/32 | Label 313 | NH AGN2-1 |
+-----------------+-----------+-----------+
+------+ +-------+
| | | | +------------------+
vl0+ ABR1 +----+ AGN21 +----+ AGN11:10.0.1.1/32|
/| | | |\ /+------------------+
/ +------+\ /+-------+ \/
+----+ +-----+/ \/ \ /\ +------------------+
| PE +---+ PLR | /\ X X+ AGN12:10.0.1.2/32|
+----+ +-----+\ / \ / \/ +------------------+
\ +------+ +-------+ /\
\| | | |/ \+------------------+
vl0+ ABR2 +----+ AGN22 +----+ AGN13:10.0.1.3/32|
| | | | +------------------+
+------+ +-------+
+----------------------------------------+
| native forwarding context |
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.1/32 | Label 100 | NH AGN21 |
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.2/32 | Label 107 | NH AGN21 | ABR2
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.3/32 | Label 152 | NH AGN21 |
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
| | |
V V V
+----------------------------------------+
| backup forwarding context |
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.1/32 | Label 200 | NH AGN21 |
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.2/32 | Label 233 | NH AGN21 | ABR2
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
| FEC 10.0.1.3/32 | Label 313 | NH AGN21 |
+-----------------+-----------+----------+
(ABR2 acting as backup for ABR1)
Figure 7: ABR Failure Scenarios
ABR2, acting as a protector for the forwarding context of ABR1, has
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
to have the <FEC->label> mapping for the FECs present in that
forwarding context, and should use this mapping to create the
forwarding state it would use when forwarding the traffic received
from the PLR. Figure 7 shows the <FEC->label> mapping on ABR1 and
ABR2. Note that the backup forwarding context on ABR2 is a mirror
image of the forwarding context on ABR1. This backup forwarding
context is populated using the routes that have been re-advertised by
ABR1 to its core peers (as ABR2 is a BGP core peer of ABR1). The
label that ABR2 advertises into LDP for ABR1's context identifier
points to the backup context. This way, ABR2 forwards all the
traffic received with this label using not its native forwarding
context, but the backup forwarding context.
Note that whether the PLR could rely on the basic LFA to re-route to
ABR2 the traffic that the PLR used to forward to ABR1 depends on the
LFA coverage. Since the basic LFA does not guarantee 100% coverage
in all topologies, relying on basic LFA may not be sufficient, in
which case the basic LFA would need to be augmented to provide 100%
coverage.
The procedures outlined above provide local protection upon ABR node
failure. By virtue of being local protection, the actions required
to restore connectivity upon the failure detection are fully
localized to the router closest to the failure - the router directly
connected to the failed ABR. This enables to deliver under 50msec
connectivity recovery time in the presence of ABR failure. These
actions do not depend on propagating failure information in ISIS,
thus providing connectivity recovery time that is independent of the
ISIS routing convergence time. In contrast, a combination of
hierarchical FIB organization and ISIS routing convergence, being a
global protection mechanism, does rely on the ISIS routing
convergence time, as the prefix-independent switch-over on the pre-
computed backup next hop occurs upon IGP convergence (deletion of the
IGP route to the remote ABR), and thus would have several 100s msec
connectivity recovery time.
5.1.8.4.2. Extensions to support ABR's connected to different
aggregation regions
Note that for the purpose of identifying the forwarding context
ABR1's forwarding state could be partitioned, with each partition
being assigned its own IP address (its own context identifier). ABR1
would advertise all these identifiers into ISIS and LDP. This may be
useful in the scenario where ABR1 is connected to more than one
aggregation domain (more than one L1 area), in which case each
context identifier would identify the ABR1's forwarding state
associated with a single aggregation domain.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
One could further refine the above scheme by implementing protector
functionality that would allow a single protector to protect multiple
forwarding contexts, with each forwarding context being associated
with all the forwarding state maintained by a given (protected) ABR.
Such functionality could be implemented either on a separate router,
or could be co-located with an existing ABR. Details of this are
outside the scope of this document.
5.1.8.4.3. Anycast BGP applied to a L3VPN PE
BGP Anycast is also used to protect against L3VPN PE failures. In
general a given VPN site can be multi-homed (connected to several
L3VPN PEs). Moreover, multi-homed sites may be non-congruent with
each other - different multi-homed sites connected to a given PE may
have their other connection(s) to different other PEs. BGP Anycast
scheme, utilizing the construct of Protector PE, provides forwarding
context protection for multiple egress PEs in the presence of non-
congruent multi-homed sites.
Protector PE function is enhanced from the basic BGP Anycast 1:1
mirroring procedures described for ABR protection, by supporting
multiple backup forwarding contexts, one per protected egress PE.
Each backup forwarding context on the Protector PE is identified by
the context identifier of the associated protected egress PE.
Protector PE advertises these context identifiers into IGP with a
large metric and into LDP with no PHP and a non-null label. This
results in PLR of each egress PE having an LFA route/LSP (or bypass
LSP if no native LFA coverage for specific topology) to the
associated context identifier with Protector PE as the next hop.
Protector PE creates a backup forwarding context per protected egress
PE based on BGP advertisements from this egress PE and other egress
PEs with the same multi-homed customer networks.
Similarly to the ABR case described earlier, in case of specific
protected egress PE failure, PLR will follow standard LFA procedure
(or local protection to bypass LSP) and forward affected flows to
Protector PE. Those flows will arrive to Protector PE on the LSP
associated with the context identifier for the failed egress PE, the
backup forwarding context will be identified by this LSP, and flows
will be switched to alternative egress PE(s).
5.1.8.5. Assessing loss of connectivity upon any failure
We select two typical traffic flows and analyze the loss of
connectivity (LoC) upon each possible failure.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
Flow F1 starts from an AN1 in a left aggregation region and ends
on an AN2 in a right aggregation region. Each AN is dual-homed to
two AGN's.
Flow F2 starts from an L3VPN PE1 in the core and ends at an L3VPN
PE2 in the core.
Note that due to the symmetric network topology in case study 1, uni-
directional flows F1' and F2', associated with F1 and F2 and
forwarded in the reversed direction (AN2 to AN1 right-to-left and PE2
to PE1, respectively), take advantage of the same failure restoration
mechanisms as F1 and F2. .
5.1.8.5.1. AN1-AGN link failure or AGN node failure
F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec is possible assuming fast BFD
detection and fast-switchover implementation on the AN. F2 is not
impacted.
5.1.8.5.2. Link or node failure within the left aggregation region
F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR. No uloop will
occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection. Note:
if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or if
LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number of
impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture is much
smaller than 2960.
F2 is not impacted.
5.1.8.5.3. ABR node failure between left region and the core
F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR. No uloop will
occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection.
Note: This case is also called "Local ABR failure" as the ABR which
fails is the one connected to the aggregation region at the source of
flow F1.
Note: remember that the left region receives the routes to all the
remote ABR's and that the labelled BGP routes are reflected from the
core to the left region with next-hop unchanged. This ensures that
the loss of the (local) ABR between the left region and the core is
seen as an IGP route impact and hence can be addressed by LFA.
Note: if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or
if LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number
of impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture is much
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
smaller than 2960.
F2 is not impacted.
5.1.8.5.4. Link or node failure within the core region
F1 and F2 are impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR.
This is specific to the particular core topology used in deployment
case study 1. The core topology has been optimized
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability] for LFA applicability.
As explained in [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability], another
alternative to provide <50msec in this case consists in using an
MPLS-TE full-mesh and MPLS-TE FRR. This is required when the
designer is not able or does not want to optimize the topology for
LFA applicability and he wants to achieve <50msec protection.
Alternatively, simple IGP convergence would ensure a LoC < second as
the number of impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture
is much smaller than 2960.
5.1.8.5.5. PE2 failure
F1 is not impacted.
F2 is impacted and the LoC is sub-300msec thanks to IGP convergence
and hierarchical FIB.
The detection of the primary nhop failure (PE2 down) is performed by
a single-area IGP convergence.
In this specific case, the convergence should be much faster than
<sec as very few prefixes are impacted upon an edge node failure.
Reusing the introduction on IGP convergence presented in an earlier
section and assuming 2 important impacted prefixes (two loopbacks per
edge node), one would expect that PE2's failure is detected in
260msec + 2*0.250msec.
In a hierarchical FIB organization on the ingress PE, once the loss
of an egress PE is detected, all the impacted BGP Path-Lists
associated with that egress PE need to be updated, and the impacted
traffic gets re-routed to the pre-computed backup PEs. The time it
takes to complete this operation is not constant, but is proportional
to the number of unique BGP Path-Lists affected by the egress PE
failure. Number of such affected BGP Path-Lists is equal to the
number of "non-congruent" multi-homed sites connected to the egress
PE, where the number of non-congruent sites is defined as the number
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
of other PEs that these sites are connected to (note that in defining
the term "non-congruent" we refer to sites, rather than to CEs, as a
given multi-homed site can use multiple CEs). Furthermore, per CE
BGP policies (e.g. single-path vs. multi-path) may further increase
number of BGP Path-Lists involved.
The LoC for BGP/BPN traffic upon PE2 failure is thus expected to be
<300msec.
Provided that all the deployment considerations have been met, LoC is
sub-50msec with BGP Anycast.
5.1.8.5.6. PE2's PE-CE link failure
F1 is not impacted.
F2 is impacted and the LoC is sub-50msec thanks to local interface
failure detection and local forwarding to the backup PE. Forwarding
to the backup PE is achieved with hierarchical FIB or local-repair of
BGP egress link providing fast re-route to the backup BGP nhop PE.
5.1.8.5.7. ABR node failure between right region and the core
F2 is not impacted.
F1 is impacted. We analyze the LoC for F1 for both hierarchical FIB
and BGP anycast.
LoC is sub-600msec thanks to hierarchical FIB.
The detection of the primary nhop failure (ABR down) is performed by
a multi-area IGP convergence.
First, the two (local) ABR's between the left and core regions must
complete the core IGP convergence. The analysis is similar to the
loss of PE2. We would thus expect that the core convergence
completes in ~260msec.
Second, the IGP convergence in the left region will cause all AGN1
routers to detect the loss of the remote ABR. This second IGP
convergence is very similar to the first one (2 important prefixes to
remove) and hence should also complete in ~260msec.
Once an AGN1 has detected the loss of the remote ABR, thanks to
hierarchical FIB organization, in-place modification of shared BGP
path-list and pre-computation of BGP backup nhop, the AGN1 reroutes
flow F1 via the alternate remote ABR in a few msec's.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
As a consequence, the LoC for F1 upon remote ABR failure is thus
expected to be <600msec.
Provided that all the deployment considerations have been met, LoC is
sub-50msec with BGP Anycast.
5.1.8.5.8. Link or node failure within the right aggregation region
F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR. No uloop will
occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection.
Note: if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or
if LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number
of impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture is much
smaller than 2960.
F2 is not impacted.
5.1.8.5.9. AGN (connected to AN2) node failure
F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR. No uloop will
occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection.
Note: remember that AGN redistributes the static routes to ANs within
ISIS. The loss of an AGN on the IGP path to AN2 is thus seen as an
IGP route impact and hence LFA FRR is applicable.
Note: if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or
if LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number
of impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture is much
smaller than 2960.
F2 is not impacted.
5.1.8.5.10. AGN-AN2 link failure
F2 is not impacted.
F1 is impacted.
LoC is sub-300msec with IGP convergence as only one prefix needs to
be updated.
Sub-50msec could be guaranteed provided that the LFA implementation
supports a redistributed static as a native IGP route.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
5.1.8.5.11. AN2 failure
F1 is impacted and the LoC lasts until the AN is recovered.
F2 is not impacted.
5.1.8.5.12. Summary - Loss of connectivity upon any failure
The Seamless MPLS architecture illustrated in deployment case study 1
guarantees sub-50msec upon any link or node failures.
5.1.8.6. Network Resiliency and Simplicity
A fundamental aspect of the Seamless MPLS architecture is the
requirement for operational simplicity.
In a network with 10k of IGP/BGP nodes and 100k of MPLS-enabled
nodes, it is extremely important to provide a simple operational
process.
LFA FRR plays a key role in providing simplicity as it is an
automated behavior which does not require any configuration or
interoperability testing.
More specifically, [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability] plays a key
role in the Seamless MPLS architecture as it describes simple design
guidelines which determiniscally ensure LFA coverage for any link and
node in the aggregation regions of the network. This is key as it
provides for a simple <50msec protection for the vast majority of the
node and link failures (>90% of the IGP/BGP3107 footprint at least).
If the guidelines cannot be met, then either the designer will rely
on (1) augmenting native LFA coverage with RSVP, or (2) a full-mesh
TE FRR model, or (3) IGP convergence. The first option provides the
same sub-50msec protection as LFA, but introduces additional RSVP
LSPs. The second option optimizes for sub-50msec protection, but
implies a more complex operational model. The third option optimizes
for simple operation but only provides <sec protection. Up to each
designer to arbitrate between these three options versus the
possibility to engineer the topology for native LFA protection.
A similar choice involves the protection against ABR node failure and
L3VPN PE node failure. The designer can either use hierarchical FIB
or Anycast BGP. Up to each designer to asssess the trade-off between
the valuation of sub-50msec instead of sub-1sec versus additional
operational considerations related to Anycast BGP.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
5.1.8.7. Conclusion
The Seamless MPLS architecture illustrated in deployment case study 1
guarantees sub-50msec for majority of link and node failures by using
LFA FRR, except ABR and L3PE node failures, and PE-CE link failure.
L3VPN PE-CE link failure can be protected with sub-50msec
restoration, by using hierarchical FIB or local-repair fast-reroute
to the backup BGP nhop PE.
ABR and L3PE node failure can be protected with sub-50msec
restoration, by using BGP Anycast.
Alternatively, ABR and L3PE node failure can be protected with sub-
1sec restoration, by using hierarchical-FIB.
5.1.9. Next-Hop Redundancy
An aggregation domain is connected to the core network using two
redundant area boarder routers, and MPLS hierarchy is applied on
these ABRs. MPLS hierarchy helps scale the FIB but introduces
additional complexity for the rerouting in case of ABR failure.
Indeed ABR failure requires a BGP converge to update the inner MPLS
hierarchy, in addition to the IGP converge to update the outer MPLS
hierarchy. This is also expected to take more time as BGP
convergence is performed after the IGP convergence and because the
number of prefixes to update in the FIB can be significant. This is
a drawback but the architecture allow for two "local" solutions which
restore the traffic before the BGP convergence takes place.
One called hierarchical FIB edge, would be required on all edge LSR
involved in the inner (BGP) MPLS hierarchy. Namely all routers
except the AN which are not involved in the inner MPLS hierarchy. It
involves pre-computing and pre-installing in the FIB the BGP backup
path. Such back up path are activated when the IGP advertise the
failure of the primary path.
One called egress fast reroute, would be required on the egress LSR
involved in the inner (BGP) MPLS hierarchy, namely TN and AGN
connected to ABR. It involves:
using a anycast loopback address shared by both nominal and back
up ABR, advertised by both ABR in the IGP and advertised as BGP
Next Hop by the nominal ABR;
activating IP FRR LFA on the (penultimate) hops, acting as PLR for
the anycast loopback;
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
using on the backup egress nodes (ABR2) an additional contextual
MPLS FIB populated by the labels upstream allocated by the nominal
egress node (ABR1).
Details can be found in [PEFRR] and [ABRFRR], and in the appendix of
this draft. Both solutions have their pro and con, and the choice is
left to each Service Provider or deployment based on the different
requirements. The point is that the seamless MPLS architecture can
handles fast restoration time, even for ABR failures.
5.2. Scalability Analysis
5.2.1. Control and Data Plane State for Deployment Scenario #1
5.2.1.1. Introduction
Let's call:
o #AN the number of Access Node (AN) in the seamless MPLS domain
o #AGN the number of AGgregation Node (AGN) in the seamless MPLS
domain
o #Core the number of Core (Core) in the core network
o #Area the number of aggregation routing domains.
Let's take the following assumptions:
o Aggregation equipments are equally spread across aggregation
routing domains
o the number of IGP links is three times the number of IGP nodes
o the number of IGP prefixes is five times the number of IGP nodes
(links prefixes + 2 loopbacks)
o Access Nodes need to set up 1000 (1k) LSPs. 10% (100) are FEC
which are outside of their routing domain. Those 100 remote FEC
are the same for all Access Nodes of a given AGN.
The following sections roughly evaluate the scalability, both in
absolute numbers and relatively with the number of Access Node which
is the biggest scalability factor.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
5.2.1.2. Core Domain
The IGP & LDP core domain are not affected by the number of access
nodes:
IGP:
node : #Core ~ o(1)
links : 3*#Core ~ o(1)
IP prefixes : 5*#Core ~ o(1)
LDP FEC:
#Core ~ o(1)
Core TN FIBs grows linearly with the number of node in the core
domain. In other word, they are not affected by AGN and AN nodes:
Core TN:
IP FIB : 5*#Core ~ o(1)
MPLS LFIB : #Core ~ o(1)
BGP carries all AN routes which is significant. However, all AN
routes are only needed in the control plane, possibly in a dedicated
BGP Route Reflector (just like for BGP/MPLS VPNs) and not in the
forwarding plane. The number of routes (100k) is smaller than the
number of number of routes in the Internet (300k and rising) or in
major VPN SP (>500k and rising) so the target can be handled with
current implementations. In addition, AN routes are internal routes
whose churn and instability is smaller and more under control than
external routes.
BGP Route Reflector (RR)
NLRI : #AN ~ o(n)
path : 2*#AN ~ o(2n)
ABR handles both the core and aggregations routes. They do not
depend on the total number of AN nodes, but only on the number of AN
in their aggregation domain.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
ABR:
IP FIB : 5*#Core + (5*#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN /#Area)
MPLS LFIB : #Core + (#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN / #Area)
5.2.1.3. Aggregation Domain
In the aggregation domain, IGP & LDP are not affected by the number
of access nodes outside of their domain. They are not affected by
the total number of AN nodes:
IGP:
node : #AGN / #Area ~ o(1)
links : 3*#AGN / #Area ~ o(1)
IP prefixes : #Core + #Area + (5*#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN
*5/ #Area)
+ + 1 loopback per core node + one aggregate per area + 5
prefixes per AGN in the area + 1 prefix per AN in the area.
LDP FEC:
Core + (#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN / #Area)
+ + 1 loopback per core node + 1 loopback per AGN & AN node in
the area.
AGN FIBs grows with the number of node in the core area, in their
aggregation area, plus the number of inter domain LSP required by the
AN attached to them. They do not depend on the total number of AN
nodes. In the BGP control plane, AGN also needs to handle all the AN
routes.
AGN:
IP FIB : #Core + #Area + (5*#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN *5/
#Area)
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
MPLS LFIB : #Core + (#AGN + #AN) / #Area + 100 ~ o(#AN / #Area)
AN FIBs grows with its connectivity requirement. They do not depend
on the number of AN, AGN, SN or any others nodes.
AN:
IP RIB : 1 ~ o(1)
MPLS LIB : 1k ~ o(1)
IP FIB : 1 ~ o(1)
MPLS LFIB : 1k ~ o(1)
5.2.1.4. Summary
AN requirements are kept minimal. BGP is not required and the size
of their FIB is limited to their own connectivity requirements.
In the core area, IGP and LDP are not affected by the node in the
aggregation domains. In particular they do not grow with the number
of AGN or AN.
In the aggregation areas, IGP and LDP are affected by the number of
core nodes and the number of AGN and AN in their area. They are not
affected by the total number of AGN or AN in the seamless MPLS
domain.
No FIB of any node is required to handle the total number of AGN or
AN in the seamless MPLS domain. In other word, the number of AGN and
AN in the seamless MPLS domain is not limited, if the number of areas
can grow accordingly. The main limitation is the MPLS connectivity
requirements on the AN, i.e. mainly the number of LSP needed on the
AN. Another limitation may be the number of different LSP needed by
AN attached or behind an AGN. However, given foreseen deployments
and current AGN capabilities, this is not expected to be a
limitation.
In the control plane, BGP will typically handle all AN routes. This
is significant but target deployments are well under current
equipments capacities. In addition, if required, additional
techniques could be used to improve this scalability, based on the
experience gained with scaling BGP/MPLS VPN (e.g. route partitioning
between RR planes, route filtering (static or dynamic with ORF or
route refresh) between AN and on AGN to improve AGN scalability.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
5.2.1.5. Numerical application for use case #1
As a recap, targets for deployment scenario 1 are:
o Number of Aggregation Domains 100
o Number of Backbone Nodes 1.000
o Number of AGgregation Nodes 10.000
o Number of Access Nodes 100.000
This gives the following scaling numbers for each category of nodes:
o AN IP FIB 1
o AN MPLS LFIB 1 000
o AGN IP FIB 2 600
o AGN MPLS LFIB 2 200
o ABR IP FIB 7 600
o ABR MPLS LFIB 2 100
o TN IP FIB 5 000
o TN MPLS LFIB 1 000
o RR BGP NLRI 100 000
o RR BGP paths 200 000
5.2.1.6. Numerical application for use case #2
As a recap, targets for deployment scenario 1 are:
o Number of Aggregation Domains 30
o Number of Backbone Nodes 150
o Number of AGgregation Nodes 1.500
o Number of Access Nodes 40.000
This gives the following scaling numbers for each category of nodes:
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
o AN IP FIB 1
o AN MPLS LFIB 1 000
o AGN IP FIB 1 700
o AGN MPLS LFIB 1 800
o ABR IP FIB 3 700
o ABR MPLS LFIB 1 600
o TN IP FIB 750
o TN MPLS LFIB 150
o RR BGP NLRI 40 000
o RR BGP paths 80 000
6. Acknowledgements
Many people contributed to this document. The authors wish to thank
- in alphabetical order:
o Wim Henderickx (Alcatel)
o Clarence Filsfils (Cisco Networks),
o Thomas Beckhaus, Wilfried Maas, Roger Wenner (Deutsche Telekom),
o Kireeti Kompella, Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks),
o Mark Tinka (Global Transit)
o Simon DeLord (Telstra)
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see
the update of RFC 2434 [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
for a guide). If the draft does not require IANA to do anything, the
section contains an explicit statement that this is the case (as
above). If there are no requirements for IANA, the section will be
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC Editor.
8. Security Considerations
In a typical MPLS deployment the use of MPLS is limited to relatively
small network consisting of core and edge nodes. Those nodes are
under full control of the services provider and placed at locations
where only authorized personal has access (this also includes
physical access to the nodes). With the extensions of MPLS towards
access and aggregation nodes not all nodes will be "locked away" in
secure locations. Small access nodes like DSLAMs will be located in
street cabinets, potentially offering access to the "interested
researcher". Nevertheless the unauthorized access to such in device
SHOULD NOT impose any security risks to the MPLS infrastructure
itself. Seamless MPLS must be stable regarding attacks against
access and aggregation nodes running MPLS.
Levels of Security: tbd.
Access Network: tbd.
Aggregation Network: tbd.
Core Network: tbd.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[ABRFRR] Rekhter, Y., "Local Protection for LSP tail-end node
failure, MPLS World Congress 2009".
[ACM01] "Archieving sub-second IGP convergence in large IP
networks, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.35
n.3", July 2005.
[BGPPIC] "BGP PIC, Technical Report", November 2007.
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability]
Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B.,
Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "LFA
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
applicability in SP networks",
draft-filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-00 (work in
progress), March 2010.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-11 (work in progress),
January 2010.
[I-D.kothari-henderickx-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming]
Kothari, B., Kompella, K., Henderickx, W., and F. Balus,
"BGP based Multi-homing in Virtual Private LAN Service",
draft-kothari-henderickx-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-01 (work
in progress), July 2009.
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in
progress), March 2008.
[I-D.raggarwa-mac-vpn]
Aggarwal, R., Isaac, A., Uttaro, J., Henderickx, W., and
F. Balus, "BGP MPLS Based MAC VPN",
draft-raggarwa-mac-vpn-01 (work in progress), June 2010.
[I-D.sajassi-l2vpn-rvpls-bgp]
Sajassi, A., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., Filsfils, C., and
S. Boutros, "Routed VPLS using BGP",
draft-sajassi-l2vpn-rvpls-bgp-01 (work in progress),
July 2010.
[PEFRR] Le Roux, J., Decraene, B., and Z. Ahmad, "Fast Reroute in
MPLS L3VPN Networks - Towards CE-to-CE Protection, MPLS
2006 Conference".
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
[RFC3353] Ooms, D., Sales, B., Livens, W., Acharya, A., Griffoul,
F., and F. Ansari, "Overview of IP Multicast in a Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Environment", RFC 3353,
August 2002.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
July 2003.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5283] Decraene, B., Le Roux, JL., and I. Minei, "LDP Extension
for Inter-Area Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5283,
July 2008.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Nicolai Leymann (editor)
Deutsche Telekom AG
Winterfeldtstrasse 21
Berlin 10781
DE
Phone: +49 30 8353-92761
Email: n.leymann@telekom.de
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Seamless MPLS May 2011
Bruno Decraene
France Telecom
38-40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy Moulineaux cedex 9, 92794
FR
Phone:
Fax:
Email: bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com
URI:
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Brussels,
Belgium
Phone:
Fax:
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
URI:
Maciek Konstantynowicz
Juniper Networks
Phone:
Fax:
Email: maciek@juniper.net
URI:
Dirk Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
Ringstrasse 2
Buchholz 53567
DE
Email: dws@steinbergnet.net
Leymann, et al. Expires November 30, 2011 [Page 47]
