Internet DRAFT - draft-mjsraman-panet-pce-power-mcast-replic
draft-mjsraman-panet-pce-power-mcast-replic
PANET Working Group Shankar Raman
Internet-Draft Balaji Venkat Venkataswami
Intended Status: Experimental RFC Gaurav Raina
Expires: May 2013 I.I.T Madras
November 5, 2012
Constructing power optimal P2MP TE-LSPs within an AS
draft-mjsraman-panet-pce-power-mcast-replic-00
Abstract
Power consumption in multicast replication operations is an area of
concern and choosing suitable replication points that can decrease
power consumption overall assumes importance. Multicast replication
capacity is an attribute of every line card of major routers and
multi-layer switches that support multicast in the core of an
Internet Service Provider (ISP) or an enterprise network.
Currently multicast replication points on Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering Label-Switched-Paths (P2MP TE-LSPs) consume power while
delivering multiple output streams of data from a given input stream.
The multicast distribution trees are constructed without any regard
for a proper placement of the replication points and consequent
optimal power consumption at these points.
This results in overloading certain routers while under-utilizing
others. An optimal usage of these replication resources could
substantially reduce power consumption on these routers. In this
paper, we propose a mechanism by which P2MP TE-LSPs are constructed
for carrying multicast traffic across multiple areas within a given
AS. We propose that these LSPs be built by using the advertisements
of the power-replication capacity ratio advertised by fine grained
components such as multicast capable line-cards of routers and multi-
layer switches deployed within an AS.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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.
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Methodology of the proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Discussion of this scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Power to available multicast replication capacity ratio in
a TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
1 Introduction
Multicast traffic across multiple areas within a given AS, may be
carried using P2MP TE-LSPs. The traffic may be carried from a ingress
Provider Edge (PE) router to several egress PEs, example in a
multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) case. The autonomous system
(AS) may comprise of multiple areas involving a backbone area and
several non-backbone areas connected to each other through the
backbone. If several such multicast streams are to be carried in the
AS, it would be most useful to have such P2MP TE-LSPs constructed
such that they have optimal power to available replication capacity
ratios on the routers' linecards that they traverse from source to
destinations. The intent is to provide a solution whereby several
such P2MP TE-LSPs can be laid out in such a way that the set of
routers that replicate multicast traffic traversed by the P2MP TE-
LSPs are most optimal in the utilization of the power provided to
them given that there is sufficient replication capacity available.
This we believe would essentially lead to a equilibrium of power to
available replication capacity ratios amongst all routers in the
topology which in turn would optimize and reduce the overall ratios
for the AS.
Each router and its respective linecards deployed in the AS have an
advertised capability for replication. Most multi-layer switches and
routers from vendors advertise in their respective data sheets a
certain capability for replication for each type of linecard
deployable on the box. Replication consumes power and delivers
multiple streams of data from a given input stream. It is status quo
that P2MP (Point-to-Multipoint) Label Switched Paths are constructed
without taking into account the power to available replication
capacity ratios of such routers thus overloading certain routers
while underutilizing the others. An optimal usage of these resources
could reduce power consumption on these routers / multi-layer
switches. This equilibrium could be arrived at by using a capability
to advertize from each router a Traffic Engineering Database Link
State Advertisement (TED-LSA) that carries the power to available
replication capacity ratio of each of the said router's line cards,
depending on the current utilization of its replication capacity and
power consumption.
This paper is organized as follows; In section 2, we deal with the
scheme that we propose. In section 2.1, we discuss some examples of
the scheme at work, and in section 3 we conclude with future areas of
study that may be useful to undertake.
1.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Methodology of the proposal
The key metric under consideration is the power consumed DIVIDED BY
available replication capacity on each of the linecards of a router
in the AS, which is eligible to be used as a node atop which
multicast traffic can be carried. Once an advertisement about the
said metric has been sent in the regular flooding process in Link
State routing protocols such as OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE, it would be
possible for a head-end router for a P2MP TE-LSP to compute the TE-
LSP through the AS from the ingress PE to all egress PEs of that
multicast stream in such a way that the power to available
replication capacity ratios at the replication points are minimal on
that path. The Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) algorithm could
be modified to compute the least cost power to available replication
capacity ratio path and thus cause an equilibrium shift to be caused.
This path would be supplied to the RSVP-TE component of the head-end
and that would set up the path with appropriate labels. Once RSVP-TE
establishes the path and traffic is carried across it, the reduced
replication capacity of the routers in the P2MP TE-LSP path would be
re-advertised again, which in turn would be useful for computation of
the other paths from the instance that the replication capacity
changed on these routers.
Assume that the following router topology in the vicinity of the
sender / senders is computed.
+----------------+
/ V
/ +----> (R2) ------> (R3)<--(RcvrB)
/ / \ |
/ / \ +------+
/ / \V
(source/s)--->(R1)------> (R5) ------> (R4)<-(RcvrA)
\ /\ /
\ ----------+ \ /
\ / \ /
(R6)----> (R7) --------> (R8)<-+
Figure 1: Topology within a given AS with coloring for Power-
replication ratios
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
In the above diagram you can see that the source/sources are
connected using a multi homed connections to the same ISP through
Routers R1 nd R2. Similarly there are two Receiver sites RcvrA and
RcvrB that are multihomed to TWO Routers RcvrB to R3 and R4 and for
RcvrA to R4 and R8 respectively.
+----------------+
/ V
/ +----> (R2) ------> (R3)<--(RcvrB)
/ / \ |
/ / \ +------+
/ / \V
(source/s)...>(R1)------> (R5) ------> (R4)<-(RcvrA)
. .\ /
. ........... \ /
. . \ /
(R6)....> (R7) ........> (R8)<-+
Legend : dotted lines represent path computed.
Figure 2: Instantiating an optimal power consuming distribution tree
Given that the path calculation engine at the head-end R1 is given
this topology and along with other TED-LSA packets the current power
to available replication capacity ratios are advertised through the
IGP-TE extensions to the head-end R1, the paths with the least power
to available replication capacity ratios are computed and the paths
setup from head-end PEs to the tail-end PEs where the recievers are
connected. It is to be noted that the ratios computed for power to
available replication capacity on the topology are examined and the
replication points are setup on those routers that have the least
power to available replication capacity ratio. If branching points
are not required at certain points, these are anyways placed on least
cost power ratio routers that are the next best location to setup a
non-branching point.
Assume the following path is computed as per the least power to
available replication capacity ratios. Paths are computed through R6,
R7, R8, R4, and say the multicast stream occupies 4GB of traffic
along this tree so constructed and the available capacity of these
routers reduces to 6GB assuming all of them have a base capacity of
10GB. Subsequent paths constructed would have to take into account
the newly computed power to current replication capacity ratio in the
topology and construct new P2MP TE-LSPs for multicast streams yet to
come.
Assume another 6GB worth of traffic is loaded onto this topology in
terms of a multicast stream / multiple streams then the new path
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
computed for these new streams would possibly utilize the same path
as computed before. If the old streams reduce the replication
capacity to an extent such that routers through which they pass can
no longer be used since these routers' power to available replication
capacity has become poor when compared to other paths then a
different path may be computed from the ingress PE to the egress PEs
in such a way as to avoid those routers which have such poor ratios.
For example, assume R6, R7, R8 and R4 have exhausted their capacity,
or guzzle more power as a result of them carrying the 4GB stream that
was originally placed atop them. then a different path would be
chosen as follows. The path followed as shown in the Figure is R2,R3
and R4. Given that R4 is the only choice since it has connectivity to
both Receivers, in this case the branch point is placed atop R3, one
branch to get to RcvrB and the other to get to RcvrA through R4.
Policy decisions could guide the placement in case of a tie. Here the
the only choice has been to drive the end replication to RcvrA
through R4 and RcvrB through R3 owing to topology constraints.
It is to be noted that the power consumed by the linecard is divided
by the available replication capacity to arrive at a ratio and that
ratio is assigned as a weight to all of the links ingressing on that
linecard. It is possible that one might take a weighted average by
dividing a weighted co-efficient sum by the weighted sum of ingress
links on a linecard and the metrics so assigned be used as the metric
for calculation.
..................
. V
. +----> (R2)........> (R3)<--(RcvrB)
. / . |
. / . +------+
. / .V
(source/s)--->(R1)-------> (R5) -------> (R4)<-(RcvrA)
\ /\ /
\ ----------+ \ /
\ / \ /
(R6)-----> (R7) -------> (R8)<+
Legend : dotted lines represent path computed.
Figure 3: Instantiating a subsequent optimal power consuming
distribution tree
2.1 Discussion of this scheme
It is to be noted that our scheme applies to centralized schemes of
path calculations. What is being calculated is a tree of nodes that
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
form a P2MP tree where each node can conceptualized as a router (read
also multi-layer switches) and each edge the link connecting one or
more ports on a line card to another linecard on a downstream router
to carry multicast traffic from a source located at the head end
ingress router to several receiver nodes connected to egress routers.
We will call this calculated tree as a P2MP tree. The tree is
calculated by the PCE in the head end / ingress router through which
sources connect. The PCE calculates the intra-AS P2MP path (the
literal P2MP TE-LSP within the AS) within that AS.
The calculated power to available replication capacity ratio is
assigned to each of the ingress links on a linecard on a router en-
route to egress links through which the multicast stream is
replicated on the same router. Thus all ingress links to a router
through a linecard are assigned the same metric as the power ratio so
calculated. The egress links would in continuity connect to a unicast
tunnel or another branch-point in the tunnel towards the receivers
which are represented as the egress routers. The egress routers would
in turn be replication points or direct connections to the actual
receivers. This method could be applied for multicast traffic to be
transported through MVPNs. The method of egress routers' discovery is
left to existing mechanisms. The primary input to the invention
proposed is an ingress router and their respective egress routers.
The other input to the construction of P2MP tree is the router level
topology with the metrics for the power to available replication
capacity ratio.
It is to be noted that this CSPF calculation can be hastened in terms
of time complexity by dividing the weights into equivalence classes.
First we divide the nodes into graph colored nodes with the least
ratio nodes marked as green as shown in the figure and given that
there exists a path that is all green from source to egress PEs, one
of such paths is chosen. If after coloring the nodes a path which is
disconnected exists, we incrementally add the next best colored nodes
to the graph to see if we a get a connected path from source to
egresses. These steps are repeated until we find a connected path.
This will hasten the algorithm to a conclusion rather than use a
brute force method which may take inordinate amount of time. R4 being
used in the 6GB case is an example of this. Because of topology
restrictions the R4 node had to be chosen inspite of the fact that it
is not green after carrying the 4GB stream.
Routers may have step levels in which they increase power consumption
when they additively are loaded with more large bandwidth consuming
multicast streams. Calibrating these levels may be useful for
implementing this scheme. It is possible that such calibrated
thresholds can be used for advertising the power to available
replication capacity ratios in the IGP-TE advertisements. This would
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
be useful for bringing down the frequency of updates or
advertisements from a line-card about its ratios. When power
consumption meanders within a certain given interval these ratios
need not be readvertised even if further multicast streams are added
to it. The incentive is to recognize a linecard that does not
drastically change power consumption even if large bandwidth streams
are added onto it for replication and thus give it credit for its
power optimal functioning. If a router tends to consume the highest
level of power even when carrying low amounts of multicast streams
and replicating them on its line card, it would automatically have a
poor ratio when compared to a router that efficiently uses power when
considering the replication capacity being used. The best case would
be a low power consuming line-card or a router filled with such line
cards that does not leave its power interval no matter how much ever
replication capacity is sought to be used on it. But that would be an
ideal condition but it is definitely an idealistic scenario towards
which the router manufacturers should look at.
It is possible that several multicast streams may be aggregated onto
a single P2MP-TE-LSP representing the given multicast tree that
encompasses the union of all the egress PEs of the several multicast
streams. The Ingress PE router is however common for all the
multicast streams so covered. Aggregation of these several multicast
streams from a given Ingress PE to several egress PEs is a common
occurrence to save the amount of state in the core of the network. By
aggregating these streams onto a single P2MP tree, it is possible to
amortize the cost of replication amongst a particular set of ingress
linecards / ports on those line cards while taking into account the
current power consumption and replication capacity available at the
time of computing the P2MP TE-LSP.
The dynamic nature of the multicast tree and the egress PEs that join
into it and leave it based on whether there are multicast listeners
in that VPN site attached to the said egress PE/ PEs, makes it
important to position the replication points in such a way that there
is maximum leverage on optimization in the ratios overall for the AS
which are computed. When aggregating multiple multicast streams over
a single P2MP TE-LSP it is important to keep this in mind.
So the key point is to aggregate multiple streams with a set
theoretical approach in mind so that there is maximum overlap of
egress PEs for these streams and position these streams atop a P2MP
TE-LSP in such a way that ratios are most optimal for that set of
streams (with the overall AS power consumption in mind).
2.2 Power to available multicast replication capacity ratio in a TLV
As per [RFC3630] the Link TLV can be used to carry this power to
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
available multicast replication capacity ratio with an additional
sub-TLV of the link TLV. The sub-type number 10 is recommended to be
defined for this purpose.
[RFC 3630] states in section 2.2.1 and we QUOTE ...
2.2.1 Link TLV
The Link TLV describes a single link. It is constructed of a set of
sub-TLVs. There are no ordering requirements for the sub-TLVs.
Only one Link TLV shall be carried in each LSA, allowing for fine
granularity changes in topology.
The Link TLV is type 2, and the length is variable.
The following sub-TLVs of the Link TLV are defined:
1 - Link type (1 octet)
2 - Link ID (4 octets)
3 - Local interface IP address (4 octets)
4 - Remote interface IP address (4 octets)
5 - Traffic engineering metric (4 octets)
6 - Maximum bandwidth (4 octets)
7 - Maximum reservable bandwidth (4 octets)
8 - Unreserved bandwidth (32 octets)
9 - Administrative group (4 octets)
10 - Power-to-Multicast-replication-capacity (4 octets)
This memo defines sub-Types 1 through 9. See the IANA Considerations
in [RFC3630] section for allocation of new sub-Types.
The Link Type and Link ID sub-TLVs are mandatory, i.e., must appear
exactly once. All other sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most
once. These restrictions need not apply to future sub-TLVs.
Unrecognized sub-TLVs are ignored.
Various values below use the (32 bit) IEEE Floating Point format. For
quick reference, this format is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Exponent | Fraction |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S is the sign, Exponent is the exponent base 2 in "excess 127"
notation, and Fraction is the mantissa - 1, with an implied binary
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
point in front of it. Thus, the above represents the value:
(-1)**(S) * 2**(Exponent-127) * (1 + Fraction)
It is proposed that we use the Power-to-multicast-replication-
capacity ratio as a 32 bit IEEE floating Point format field for the
purpose of this document.
3 Conclusion
Here we propose a scheme that takes into account the power to
available replication capacity ratios as weights for the edges and
compute a low cost power path for multicast replication. This scheme
could be extended to inter-AS multicast streams or to inter-AS
multicast streams where the multicast stream is sought to be carried
over multiple ASes. This is an area of future study which would be
most conducive in terms of bringing about optimal power usage and
thus incentivising vendors to manufacture low power consuming
equipment. Compelled to bring about radical change in the thinking
relating to power consumption vendors manufacturing networking
equipment will drive down power consumption since the scheme proposed
chooses or gives priority to low power guzzling linecards.
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
3 Security Considerations
The security considerations for this proposal are the same as any NEW
opaque LSA introduced in an IGP like OSPF, IS-IS.
4 IANA Considerations
IANA would need to assign a NEW opaque LSA type to carry power and
multicast replication capacity such that this information can be
carried in the TE-LSAs within an AS.
5 References
5.1 Normative References
5.2 Informative References
[1] G. Appenzeller, Sizing router buffers, Doctoral
Thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford
University, 2005.
[2] A. P. Bianzino, C. Chaudet, D. Rossi and J. L.
Rougier, A survey of green networking research, IEEE
Communications and Surveys Tutorials, preprint.
[3] J. Baliga, K. Hinton and R. S. Tucker, Energy
consumption of the internet, Proc. of joint international
conference on optical internet, June 2007, pp. 1993.
[4] J. Chabarek, J. Sommers, P. Barford, C. Estan, D.
Tsiang and S. Wright, Power awareness in network design
and routing, Proc. of the IEEE INFOCOM 2008, April 2008,
pp. 457-465.
[5] M. Xia et. al., Greening the optical backbone network:
A traffic engineering approach, IEEE ICC Proceedings, May
2010, pp. 1995.
[6] W. Lu and S. Sahni, Low-power TCAMs for very large
forwarding tables, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computer
Networks, June 2010, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 948-959.
[7] B. Zhang, Routing Area Open Meeting, Proceedings of
the IETF 81, Quebec, Canada, July 2011.
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT Constructing Power Optimal P2MP-LSPs November 5, 2012
Authors' Addresses
Shankar Raman
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
I.I.T Madras,
Chennai - 600036
TamilNadu,
India.
EMail: mjsraman@cse.iitm.ac.in
Balaji Venkat Venkataswami
Department of Electrical Engineering,
I.I.T Madras,
Chennai - 600036,
TamilNadu,
India.
EMail: balajivenkat299@gmail.com
Prof.Gaurav Raina
Department of Electrical Engineering,
I.I.T Madras,
Chennai - 600036,
TamilNadu,
India.
EMail: gaurav@ee.iitm.ac.in
Shankar Raman et.al. Expires May 2013 [Page 12]
