C
   / \
  B-D-L--
 / \ /   \
A   E     \
 \         M
  \   G   /
   \ / \ /
    F   K
     \ /
      I

Figure 10: ECMP Topology Example

Segment Routing offers a simple support for such ECMP-based shortest- path placement: a node segment. A single node segment enumerates all the ECMP paths along the shortest-path.

When the capacity planning process detects that a traffic growth scenario and topology variation would lead to congestion, a capacity increase is triggered and if it cannot be deployed in due time, a traffic engineering solution is activated within the network.

A basic traffic engineering objective consists of finding the smallest set of demands that need to be routed off their shortest path to eliminate the congestion, then to compute an explicit path for each of them and instantiating these traffic-engineered policies in the network.

Segment Routing offers a simple support for explicit path policy. Let us provide two examples based on Figure 10.

First example: let us assume that the process has selected the flow AM for traffic-engineering away from its ECMP-enabled shortest path and flow AM must avoid consuming resources on the LM and the FG links.

The solution is straightforward: A sends its M-destined traffic towards the nhop F with a two-label stack where the top label is the adjacent segment FI and the next label is the node segment to M. Alternatively, a three-label stack with adjacency segments FI, IK and KM could have been used.

Second example: let us assume that AM is still the selected flow but the constraint is relaxed to only avoid using resources from the LM link.

The solution is straightforward: A sends its M-destined traffic towards the nhop F with a one-label stack where the label is the node segment to M. Note that while the AM flow has been traffic-engineered away from its natural shortest-path (ECMP across three paths), the traffic-engineered path is still ECMP-aware and leverages two of the three initial paths. This is accomplished with a single-label stack and without the enumeration of one tunnel per path.

Under the light of these examples, Segment Routing offers an interesting solution for Capacity Planning because:

One node segment represents the set of ECMP-aware shortest paths.

Adjacency segments allow to express any explicit path.

The combination of node and adjacency segment allows to express any path without having to enumerate all the ECMP options.

The capacity planning process ensures that the majority of the traffic rides on node segments (ECMP-based shortest path), while a minority of the traffic is routed off its shortest-path.

The explicitly-engineered traffic (which is a minority) still benefits from the ECMP-awareness of the node segments within their segment list.

Only the head-end of a traffic-engineering policy maintains state. The midpoints and tail-ends do not maintain any state.

4.2.2. SDN/SR use-case

The heart of the application of SR to the SDN use-case lies in the SDN controller, also called Stateful PCE ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]).

The SDN controller is responsible to control the evolution of the traffic matrix and topology. It accepts or denies the addition of new traffic into the network. It decides how to route the accepted traffic. It monitors the topology and upon failure, determines the minimum traffic that should be rerouted on an alternate path to alleviate a bandwidth congestion issue.

The algorithms supporting this behavior are a local matter of the SDN controller and are outside the scope of this document.

The means of collecting traffic and topology information are the same as what would be used with other SDN-based traffic-engineering solutions (e.g. [RFC5101] and [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].

The means of instantiating policy information at a traffic-engineering head-end are the same as what would be used with other SDN-based traffic-engineering solutions (e.g.: [I-D.ward-i2rs-framework], [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] and [draft-msiva-pce-pcep-segment-routing-extensions-00]).

4.2.2.1. Illustration

                      _______________
                     {               }
    +--C--+    V    {  SDN Controller }
    |/   \|   /      {_______________} 
A===B--G--D==F--Y
    |\   /|   \
    +--E--+    Z

SDN/SR use-case

Let us assume that in the above network diagram:

An SDN Controller (SC) is connected to the network and is able to retrieve the topology and traffic information, as well as set traffic-engineering policies on the network nodes.

The operator (likely via the SDN Controller) as provisioned the Node-SIDs 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 201, 202 and 203 respectively at nodes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, V, Y and Z.

All the links have the same BW (e.g. 10G) and IGP cost (e.g. 10) except the links BG and GD which have IGP cost 50.

Each described node connectivity is formed as a bundle of two links, except (B, G) and (G, D) which are formed by a single link each.

Flow FV is traveling from A to destinations behind V.

Flow FY is traveling from A to destinations behind Y.

Flow FZ is traveling from A to destinations behind Z.

The SDN Controller has admitted all these flows and has let A apply the default SR policy: “map a flow onto its ECMP-aware shortest-path”.

In this example, this means that A respectively maps the flows FV onto segment list {201}, FY onto segment list {202} and FZ onto segment list {203}.

In this example, the reader should note that the SDN Controller knows what A would do and hence knows and controls that none of these flows are mapped through G.

Let us describe what happens upon the failure of one of the two links E-D.

The SDN Controller monitors the link-state database and detects a congestion risk due to the reduced capacity between E and D. Specifically, SC updates its simulation of the traffic according to the policies he instructed the network to use and discovers that too much traffic is mapped on the remaining link E-D.

The SDN Controller then computes the minimum number of flows that should be deviated from their existing path. For example, let us assume that the flow FZ is selected.

The SDN controller then computes an explicit path for this flow. For example, let us assume that the chosen path is ABGDFZ.

The SDN controller then maps the chosen path into an SR-based policy. In our example, the path ABGDFZ is translated into a segment list {107, 203}. Node-SID steers the traffic along ABG and then Node-SID 203 steers the traffic along GDFZ.

The SDN controller then applies the following traffic-engineering policy at A: “map any packet of the classified flow FZ onto segment-list {107, 203}". The SDN Controller uses PCEP extensions to instantiate that policy at A ([draft-msiva-pce-pcep-segment-routing-extensions-00]).

As soon as A receives the PCEP message, it enforces the policy and the traffic classified as FZ is immediately mapped onto segment list {107, 203}.

This immediately eliminate the congestion risk. Flows FV and FY were untouched and keep using the ECMP-aware shortest-path. The minimum amount of traffic was rerouted (FZ). No signaling hop-by-hop through the network from A to Z is required. No admission control hop-by-hop is required. No state needs to be maintained by B, G, D, F or Z. The only maintained state is within the SDN controller and the head-end node (A).

4.2.2.2. Benefits

In the context of Centralized-Based Optimization and the SDN use-case, here are the benefits provided by the SR architecture:

Explicit routing capability with or without ECMP-awareness.

No signaling hop-by-hop through the network.

State is only maintained at the policy head-end. No state is maintained at mid-points and tail-ends.

Automated guaranteed FRR for any topology (Section 3.

Optimum virtualization: the policy state is in the packet header and not in the intermediate node along the policy. The policy is completely virtualized away from midpoints and tail-ends.

Highly responsive to change: the SDN Controller only needs to apply a policy change at the head-end. No delay is lost programming the midpoints and tail-end along the policy.

4.2.2.3. Dataset analysis

A future version of this document will report some analysis of the application of the SDN/SR use-case to real operator data sets.

A first, incomplete, report is available here below.

4.2.2.3.1. Example 1

The first data-set consists in a full-mesh of 12000 explicitly-routed tunnels observed on a real network. These tunnels resulted from distributed headend-based CSPF computation.

We measured that only 65% of the traffic is riding on its shortest path.

Three well-known defects are illustrated in this data set:

The lack of ECMP support in explicitly—routed tunnels: ATM-alike traffic-steering mechanisms steer the traffic along a non-ECMP path.

The increase of the number of explicitly-routed non-ECMP tunnels to enumerate all the ECMP options.

The inefficiency of distributed optimization: too much traffic is riding off its shortest path.

We applied the SDN/SR use-case to this dataset. This means that:

The distributed CSPF computation is replaced by centralized optimization and BW admission control, supported by the SDN Controller.

As part of the optimization, we also optimized the IGP-metrics such as to get a maximum of traffic load-spread among ECMP-paths by default.

The traffic-engineering policies are supported by SR segment-lists.

As a result, we measured that 98% of the traffic would be kept on its normal policy (ride shortest-path) and only 2% of the traffic requires a path away from the shortest-path.

Let us highlight a few benefits:

98% of the traffic-engineering head-end policies are eliminated.

Indeed, by default, an SR-capable ingress edge node maps the traffic on a single Node-ID to the egress edge node. No configuration or policy needs to be maintained at the ingress edge node to realize this.

100% of the states at mid/tail nodes are eliminated.

4.2.3. Residual Bandwidth

The notion of Residual Bandwidth (RBW) is introduced by [I-D.atlas-mpls-te-express-path].

A future version of this document will describe the SR/RBW research opportunity.

5. Service chaining

Segment routing can be used to steer packets through services offered by middleboxes to perform specific actions such as DPI, accounting, etc.

I---A---B---C---E
 \  |  / \ /
  \ | /   F
   \|/
    D

+--+    _   +--+                    +-------+
|  |   { }  |  |---991---L1---662---|       |
|MS|--{   }-|R1|---992---L2---663---|R2 (72)|
|  |   {_}  |  |---993---L3---664---|       |
+--+        +--+                    +-------+