Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa
draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa
PIM Working Group Y. Liu
Internet Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Informational M. McBride
Expires: 28 December 2023 Futurewei
Z. Zhang
ZTE
J. Xie
Huawei
C. Lin
New H3C Technologies
28 June 2023
Multicast-only Fast Reroute Based on Topology Independent Loop-free
Alternate Fast Reroute
draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-02
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 December 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
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.
Abstract
Multicast-only Fast Reroute (MoFRR) has been defined in RFC7431,
but the selection of the secondary multicast next hop depends on the
loop-free alternate fast reroute, which has restrictions in
multicast deployments. This document describes a mechanism for
Multicast-only Fast Reroute by using Topology Independent Loop-free
Alternate fast reroute, which is independent of network topology and
can achieve the coverage of more network environments.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language.....................................3
1.2. Terminology...............................................3
2. Problem Statement..............................................3
2.1. LFA for MoFRR.............................................3
2.2. RLFA for MoFRR............................................4
2.3. TI-LFA for MoFRR..........................................5
3. Solution.......................................................6
4. Illustration...................................................7
5. IANA Considerations...........................................10
6. Security Considerations.......................................10
7. References....................................................10
7.1. Normative References.....................................10
Contributors.....................................................11
Authors' Addresses...............................................11
1. Introduction
As the deployment of video services, operators are paying more and
more attention to solutions that minimize the service disruption due
to faults in the IP network carrying the packets for these services.
Multicast-only Fast Reroute (MoFRR) has been defined in [RFC7431],
which can minimize multicast packet loss in a network when node or
link failures occur by making simple enhancements to multicast
routing protocols such as Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM). But
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
the selection of the secondary multicast next hop only according to
the loop-free alternate fast reroute in [RFC7431], and there are
limitations in multicast deployments for this mechanism. This
document describes a new mechanism for Multicast-only Fast Reroute
using Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate (TI-LFA) fast
reroute, which is independent of network topology and can achieve
covering more network environments.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Terminology
This document use the terms defined in [RFC7431], and also use the
concepts defined in [RFC7490]. The specific content of each term is
not described in this document.
2. Problem Statement
2.1. LFA for MoFRR
In [RFC7431] section 3, the secondary Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH)
of PIM for MoFRR is a loop-free alternate (LFA). However, the
traditional LFA mechanism needs to satisfy at least one neighbor
whose next hop to the destination node is an acyclic next hop,
existing limitations in network deployments, and can only cover part
of the network topology environments. In some network topologies,
the corresponding secondary UMH cannot be calculated, so PIM cannot
establish a standby multicast tree and cannot implement MoFRR
protection. Therefore, the current MoFRR of PIM is only available in
the network topology applicable to LFA.
The problem of current MoFRR applicability can be illustrated by the
example network shown in Figure 1. The metric of R1-R4 link is 20,
the metric of R5-R6 link is 100, and the metrics of other links are
10.
Towards multicast source S1, the primary path of the PIM join packet
is R3->R2->R1, and the secondary path is R3->R4->R1, which is the
same as the LFA path of unicast routing. In this case, the current
MoFRR can work well.
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
Towards multicast source S2, the primary path of the PIM join packet
is R3->R2. However, the LFA does not exist. If R3 sends the packet
to R4, R4 will forward it back to R3, as the IGP shortest path from
R4 to R1 is R4->R3->R2. In this case, the secondary UMH cannot be
calculated by the current MoFRR. Similarly for multicast source S3,
the current MoFRR does not work either.
[S1]---(R1)----------(R4)
| |
| |
| |
| | ------+------
[S2]---(R2)----------(R3)---[R] Link |Metric
| | ------+------
| | R1-R4 | 20
| | R5-R6 | 100
| | Other | 10
[S3]---(R5)---(R6)---(R7) ------+------
Figure 1: Example Network Topology
2.2. RLFA for MoFRR
The remote loop-free alternate (RLFA) defined in [RFC7490] is
extended from the LFA and can cover more network deployment
scenarios through the tunnel as an alternate path. The RLFA
mechanism needs to satisfy at least one node assumed to be N in the
network that the fault node is neither on the path from the source
node to the N node, nor on the path from the N node to the
destination node.
[RFC5496] defines the RPF Vector attribute that can be carried in
the PIM Join packet such that the path is selected based on the
unicast reachability of the RPF Vector. The secondary multicast tree
of MoFRR can be established by using the combination of RLFA
mechanism and RPF Vector, which would cover more network topologies
than the current MoFRR with LFA.
For example, in the network of Figure 1, the secondary path of PIM
join packet towards multicast source S2 cannot be calculated by the
current MoFRR, as mentioned above. Based on the RLFA mechanism, R3
sends the packet to R4 along with an RPF Vector containing the IP
address of R1, which is the PQ node of R3 with respect to the
protected link R2-R3. Then R4 will forward the packet to R1 through
the link R1-R4, according to the unicast route for the RPF Vector.
R1 continues to forward the packet to R2, and the secondary path,
R3->R4->R1->R2, is established by MoFRR with RLFA.
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
2.3. TI-LFA for MoFRR
However, RLFA is also topology dependent. In the network of Figure
1, towards multicast source S3, the primary path of the PIM join
packet is R3->R2->R5, but the RLFA path does not exist. This is
because the PQ node of R3 with respect to the protected link R2-R3
does not exist. If R3 sends the packet to R7 along with an RPF
Vector containing the IP address of R5, R7 will forward it back to
R3, since the IGP shortest path from R7 to R5 is R7->R3->R2->R5. Or,
if R3 sends the packet to R7 along with an RPF Vector containing the
IP address of R6, R7 will forward it to R6, but then R6 will forward
it back to R7, since the IGP shortest path from R6 to R5 is
R6->R7->R3->R2->R5. In this case, the secondary UMH cannot be
calculated by MoFRR with RLFA.
RLFA only has enhancement compared to LFA but still has limitations.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] defines a unicast FRR
solution based on the TI-LFA mechanism. The TI-LFA mechanism can
express the backup path with an explicit path, and has no constraint
on the topology, providing a more reliable FRR mechanism. The
unicast traffic can be forwarded according to the explicit path list
as an alternate path to implement unicast traffic protection, and
can achieve full coverage of various networking environments.
The alternate path provided by the TI-LFA mechanism is actually a
Segment List, including the NodeSID of P space node and the
Adjacency SID(s) of link(s) between the P space and the Q space. PIM
can look up the corresponding node IP address in the unicast route
according to the NodeSID, and the IP addresses of the two endpoints
of the corresponding link in the unicast route according to the
Adjacency SIDs, but the multicast protocol packets cannot be
directly sent along the path of the Segment List.
PIM join messages need to be sent hop-by-hop to establish a standby
multicast tree. However, not all of the nodes and links on the
unicast alternate path are included in the Segment List. If the PIM
protocol packets are transmitted only in unicast mode, then
equivalently the PIM packets are transmitted through the unicast
tunnel like unicast traffic, and cannot pass through the
intermediate nodes of the tunnel. The intermediate nodes of the
alternate path cannot forward multicast traffic because there are no
PIM state entries on the nodes. PIM needs to create entries on the
device hop-by-hop and generate an incoming interface and an outgoing
interface list. So, it can form an end-to-end complete multicast
tree for forwarding multicast traffic. Therefore, simply sending PIM
join packets with the Segment List, like the unicast traffic, cannot
establish a standby multicast tree.
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
3. Solution
A secondary Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) is a candidate next-hop
that can be used to reach the root of the tree. In this document
the secondary UMH is based on unicast routing to find the Segment
List calculated by TI-LFA.
In principle, the path information of the Segment List is added to
the PIM packets to guide the hop-by-hop RPF selection. The IP
address of the node corresponding to the Node SID can be used as the
segmented root node, and the IP addresses of the interfaces at both
endpoints of the link corresponding to the Adjacency SID can be used
directly as the local upstream interface and upstream neighbor.
For the PIM protocol, the PIM RPF Vector attribute was defined in
[RFC5496], which can carry the node IP address corresponding to the
Node SID. The explicit RPF Vector was defined in [RFC7891], which
can carry the peer IP address corresponding to the Adjacency SID.
This document can use the above two RPF Vector standards and does
not need to extend the PIM protocol, to establish the standby
multicast tree according to the Segment List calculated by TI-LFA,
and can achieve full coverage of various networking environments for
MoFRR protection of multicast services.
Assume that the Segment List calculated by TI-LFA is (NodeSID(A),
AdjSID(A-B)). Node A belongs to the P Space, and node B belongs to
the Q space. The IP address corresponding to NodeSID(A) can be
looked up in the local link state database of the IGP protocol, and
can be assumed to be IP-a. The IP addresses of the two endpoints of
the link corresponding to AdjSID(A-B) can also be looked up in the
local link state database of the IGP protocol, and can be assumed to
be IP-La and IP-Lb.
In the procedure of PIM, IP-a can be regarded as the normal RPF
Vector Attribute and added to the PIM join packet. IP-La can be
regarded as the local address of the incoming interface, and IP-Lb
can be regarded as the address of the upstream neighbor. So IP-Lb
can be added to the PIM join packet as the explicit RPF Vector
Attribute.
The PIM protocol firstly can select the RPF incoming interface and
upstream towards IP-a, and can join hop-by-hop to establish the PIM
standby multicast tree until the node A. On the node A, IP-Lb can be
regarded as the PIM upstream neighbor. The node A can find the
incoming interface in the unicast routing table according to the IP-
Lb, and IP-Lb is used as the RPF upstream address of the PIM join
packet to the node B.
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
After the PIM join packet is received on the node B, the PIM
protocol can find no more RPF Vector Attributes and select the RPF
incoming interface and upstream towards the multicast source
directly, and then can continue to join hop-by-hop to establish the
PIM standby multicast tree until the router directly connected the
source.
4. Illustration
This section provides an illustration of MoFRR based on TI-LFA. The
example topology is shown in Figure 2. The metric of R3-R4 link is
100, and the metrics of other links are 10. All the link metrics are
bidirectional.
<-----Priamry Path--- (S,G) Join
[S]---(R1)---(R2)******(R6)-------[R]
| |
<--- | | |
| | | |
| | (R5) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| (R3)------(R4) |
| |
--Secondary Path--
Figure 2: Example Topology
The IP addresses and SIDs, which may be involved in the MoFRR
calculation, are configured as following:
IPv4 Data Plane (MPLS-SR)
Node IP Address Node SID
R4 IP4-R4 Label-R4
Link IP Address Adjacency SID
R3->R4 IP4-R3-R4 Label-R3-R4
R4->R3 IP4-R4-R3 Label-R4-R3
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
IPv6 Data Plane (SRv6)
Node IP Address Node SID (End)
R4 IP6-R4 SID-R4
Link IP Address Adjacency SID (End.X)
R3->R4 IP6-R3-R4 SID-R3-R4
R4->R3 IP6-R4-R3 SID-R4-R3
The primary path of the PIM join packet is R6->R2->R1, and the
secondary path is R6->R5->R4->R3->R2->R1. However, the traditional
LFA does not work properly for the secondary path, because the
shortest path to R2 from R5 (or from R4) still goes through R6-R2
link. In this case, R6 needs to calculate the secondary UMH using
the proposed MoFRR method based on TI-LFA.
According to the TI-LFA algorithm, P-Space and Q-Space are shown in
Figure 3. The TI-LFA repair path consists of the Node SID of R4 and
the Adjacency SID of R4->R3. On MPLS-SR data plane, the repair
segment list is (Label-R4, Label-R4-R3). On SRv6 data plane, the
repair segment list is (SID-R4, SID-R4-R3).
........
. .
[S]---(R1)---(R2)******(R6)---[R]
. | . |
. | . +++|++++
. | . + | +
. | . + (R5) +
. | . + | +
. | . + | +
. | . + | +
. (R3)------(R4) +
. . + +
........ ++++++++
Q-Space P-Space
Figure 3: P-Space and Q-Space
In the procedure of PIM, the IP addresses associated with the repair
segment list are looked up in the IGP link state database.
On IPv4 data plane, the Node SID Label-R4 corresponds to IP4-R4,
which will be carried in the RPF Vector Attribute. The Adjacency SID
Label-R4-R3 corresponds to local address IP4-R4-R3 and remote peer
address IP4-R3-R4, and IP4-R3-R4 will be carried in the Explicit RPF
Vector Attribute.
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
On IPv6 data plane, the End SID SID-R4 corresponds to IP6-R4, which
will be carried in the RPF Vector Attribute. The End.X SID SID-R4-R3
corresponds to local address IP6-R4-R3 and remote peer address IP6-
R3-R4, and IP6-R3-R4 will be carried in the Explicit RPF Vector
Attribute.
Then, R6 installs the secondary UMH with these RPF Vectors.
+---------+
|Type = 0 |
|IP4-R4 |
+---------+ +---------+
|Type = 4 | |Type = 4 |
|IP4-R3-R4| |IP4-R3-R4|
+---------+ +---------+ No RPF Vector
R6----->R5---->R4------------>R3----->R2---->R1
Figure 4: Forwarding PIM Join Packet along Secondary Path (IPv4)
On IPv4 data plane, the forwarding of PIM join packet along the
secondary path is shown in Figure 4.
R6 inserts two RPF Vector Attributes in the PIM join packet, which
are IP4-R4 of Type 0 (RPF Vector Attribute) and IP4-R3-R4 of Type 4
(Explicit RPF Vector Attribute). Then R6 forwards the packet along
the secondary path.
When R5 receives the packet, R5 performs a unicast route lookup of
the first RPF Vector IP4-R4 and sends the packet to R4.
R4 is the owner of IP4-R4, so it removes the first RPF Vector from
the packet and forwards according to the following RPF Vector. R4
sends the packet to R3 according to the next RPF Vector IP4-R3-R4,
since its PIM neighbor R3 corresponds to IP4-R3-R4.
When R3 receives the packet, as the owner of IP4-R3-R4, it removes
the RPF Vector. Then the packet has no RPF Vector, and will be
forwarded to the source through R3->R2->R1 according to unicast
routes.
After the PIM join packet reaches R1, a secondary multicast tree,
R1->R2->R3->R4->R5->R6, is established hop-by-hop for (S, G) by
MoFRR based on TI-LFA.
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
+---------+
|Type = 0 |
|IP6-R4 |
+---------+ +---------+
|Type = 4 | |Type = 4 |
|IP6-R3-R4| |IP6-R3-R4|
+---------+ +---------+ No RPF Vector
R6----->R5---->R4------------>R3----->R2---->R1
Figure 5: Forwarding PIM Join Packet along Secondary Path (IPv6)
On IPv6 data plane, the forwarding of PIM join packet along the
secondary path is shown in Figure 5. The procedure is similar with
IPv4 data plane.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not change the security properties of PIM. For
general PIM-SM protocol Security Considerations, see [RFC7761].
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009
[RFC7431] Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431, August
2015
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, April 2015
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas,
I.,Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol
IndependentMulticast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
Specification(Revised)", RFC 7761, March 2016
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
[RFC7891] Asghar, J., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Krishnaswamy, S., Karan,
A., and V. Arya, "Explicit Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF)
Vector", RFC 7891, June 2016
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A.,
Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Decraene, B., and D. Voyer,
"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-10, work-in-
progress, April 2023
Contributors
Mengxiao Chen
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: chen.mengxiao@h3c.com
Authors' Addresses
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
China
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Mike McBride
Futurewei Inc.
USA
Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com
Zheng(Sandy) Zhang
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com
Jingrong Xie
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA June 2023
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Liu, et al. Expires 28 December 2023 [Page 12]
