Internet DRAFT - draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath
draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath
MPLS C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft Outer Cape Cod Network
Intended status: Informational Consulting
Expires: April 5, 2013 October 2, 2012
Use of Multipath with MPLS-TP and MPLS
draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-03
Abstract
Many MPLS implementations have supported multipath techniques and
many MPLS deployments have used multipath techniques, particularly in
very high bandwidth applications, such as provider IP/MPLS core
networks. MPLS-TP has strongly discouraged the use of multipath
techniques. Some degradation of MPLS-TP OAM performance cannot be
avoided when operating over many types of multipath implementations.
Using MPLS Entropy label, MPLS can LSP can be carried over multipath
links while also providing a fully MPLS-TP compliant server layer for
MPLS-TP LSP. This document describes the means of supporting MPLS as
a server layer for MPLS-TP. The use of MPLS-TP LSP as a server layer
for MPLS LSP is also discussed.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5, 2013.
Copyright 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
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
(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
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. MPLS as a Server Layer for MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. MPLS-TP as a Server Layer for MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
1. Introduction
Today the requirement to handle large aggregations of traffic, can be
handled by a number of techniques which we will collectively call
multipath. Multipath applied to parallel links between the same set
of nodes includes Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX], link
bundling [RFC4201], or other aggregation techniques some of which may
be vendor specific. Multipath applied to diverse paths rather than
parallel links includes Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) as applied to
OSPF, ISIS, or BGP, and equal cost LSP. Some vendors support load
split across equal cost MPLS LSP where the load is split
proportionally to the reserved bandwidth of the set of LSP.
RFC 5654 requirement 33 requires the capability to carry a client
MPLS-TP or MPLS layer over a server MPLS-TP or MPLS layer [RFC5654].
This is possible in all cases with one exception. When an MPLS LSP
exceeds the capacity of any single component link it may be carried
by a network using multipath techniques, but may not be carried by an
MPLS-TP LSP due to the inherent MPLS-TP capacity limitation imposed
by MPLS-TP OAM packet ordering constraints.
The term composite link is more general than terms such as link
aggregation (which is specific to Ethernet) or ECMP (which implies
equal cost paths within a routing protocol). The use of the term
composite link here is consistent with the broad definition in
[ITU-T.G.800]. Multipath is very similar to composite link as
defined by ITU, but specifically excludes inverse multiplexing.
2. Definitions
Multipath
The term multipath includes all techniques in which
1. Traffic can take more than one path from one node to a
destination.
2. Individual packets take one path only. Packets are not
subdivided and reassembled at the receiving end.
3. Packets are not resequenced at the receiving end.
4. The paths may be:
a. parallel links between two nodes, or
b. may be specific paths across a network to a destination
node, or
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
c. may be links or paths to an intermediate node used to
reach a common destination.
Link Bundle
Link bundling is a multipath technique specific to MPLS
[RFC4201]. Link bundling supports two modes of operations.
Either an LSP can be placed on one component link of a link
bundle, or an LSP can be load split across all members of the
bundle. There is no signaling defined which allows a per LSP
preference regarding load split, therefore whether to load split
is generally configured per bundle and applied to all LSP across
the bundle.
Link Aggregation
The term "link aggregation" generally refers to Ethernet Link
Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX] as defined by the IEEE. Ethernet Link
Aggregation defines a Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP)
which coordinates inclusion of LAG members in the LAG.
Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
A group of physical Ethernet interfaces that are treated as a
logical link when using Ethernet Link Aggregation is referred to
as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).
Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP)
Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) is a specific form of multipath in
which the costs of the links or paths must be equal in a given
routing protocol. The load may be split equally across all
available links (or available paths), or the load may be split
proportionally to the capacity of each link (or path).
Loop Free Alternate Paths
"Loop-free alternate paths" (LFA) are defined in RFC 5714,
Section 5.2 [RFC5714] as follows. "Such a path exists when a
direct neighbor of the router adjacent to the failure has a path
to the destination that can be guaranteed not to traverse the
failure." Further detail can be found in [RFC5286]. LFA as
defined for IPFRR can be used to load balance by relaxing the
equal cost criteria of ECMP, though IPFRR defined LFA for use in
selecting protection paths. When used with IP, proportional
split is generally not used. LFA use in load balancing is
implemented by some vendors though it may be rare or non-existent
in deployments.
Composite Link
The term Composite Link had been a registered trademark of Avici
Systems, but was abandoned in 2007. The term composite link is
now defined by the ITU in [ITU-T.G.800]. The ITU definition
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
includes multipath as defined here, plus inverse multiplexing
which is explicitly excluded from the definition of multipath.
Inverse Multiplexing
Inverse multiplexing either transmits whole packets and
resequences the packets at the receiving end or subdivides
packets and reassembles the packets at the receiving end.
Inverse multiplexing requires that all packets be handled by a
common egress packet processing element and is therefore not
useful for very high bandwidth applications.
Component Link
The ITU definition of composite link in [ITU-T.G.800] and the
IETF definition of link bundling in [RFC4201] both refer to an
individual link in the composite link or link bundle as a
component link. The term component link is applicable to all
multipath.
LAG Member
Ethernet Link Aggregation as defined in [IEEE-802.1AX] refers to
an individual link in a LAG as a LAG member. A LAG member is a
component link. An Ethernet LAG is a composite link. IEEE does
not use the terms composite link or component link.
load split
Load split, load balance, or load distribution refers to
subdividing traffic over a set of component links such that load
is fairly evenly distributed over the set of component links and
certain packet ordering requirements are met. Some existing
techniques better acheive these objectives than others.
A small set of requirements are discussed. These requirements make
use of keywords such as MUST and SHOULD as described in [RFC2119].
3. MPLS as a Server Layer for MPLS-TP
MPLS LSP may be used as a server layer for MPLS-TP LSP as long as all
MPLS-TP requirements are met, including the requirement that packets
within an MPLS-TP LSP are not reordered, including both payload and
OAM packets.
Supporting MPLS-TP LSP overa fully MPLS-TP conformant MPLS LSP server
layer where the MPLS LSP are making use of multipath, requires
special treatment of the MPLS-TP LSP such that those LSP only are not
subject to the multipath load slitting. This implies the following
brief set of requirements.
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
MP#1 It MUST be possible to identify MPLS-TP LSP.
MP#2 It MUST be possible to completely exclude MPLS-TP LSP from the
multipath hash and load split.
MP#3 It SHOULD be possible to insure that an MPLS-TP LSP will not be
moved to another component link as a result of a composite link
load rebalancing operation.
MP#4 Where an RSVP-TE control plane is used, it MUST be possible for
an ingress LSR which is setting up an MPLS-TP or MPLS LSP to
determine at CSPF time whether a link or MPLS PSC LSP within
the topology can support the MPLS-TP requirements of the LSP.
There is currently no signaling mechanism defined to support
requirement MP#1. In the absense of a signaling extension, MPLS-TP
can be identified through some form of configuration, such as
configuration which provides an MPLS-TP compatible server layer to
all LSP arriving on a specific interface or originating from a
specific set of ingress LSR. Alternately an MPLS-TP LSP can be
created with and Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) and entropy label (EL)
below the MPLS-TP label [I-D.ietf-mpls-entropy-label].
Some hardware which exists today can support requirement MP#2.
Signaling in the absense of MPLS Entropy Label can make use of link
bundling with a specific component for MPLS-TP LSP and link bundling
with the all-zeros component for MPLS LSP. This prevents MPLS-TP LSP
from being carried within MPLS LSP but does allow the co-existance of
MPLS-TP and very large MPLS LSP.
MPLS-TP LSP can be carried as client LSP within an MPLS server LSP if
an Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) and entropy label (EL) is added
after the server layer LSP label(s) in the label stack, just above
the MPLS-TP LSP label entry [I-D.ietf-mpls-entropy-label]. This
allows MPLS-TP LSP to be carried as client LSP within MPLS LSP and
satisfies requirement MP#2 but requires that MPLS LSR be able to
identify MPLS-TP LSP (requirement MP#1).
MPLS-TP traffic can be protected from an degraded performance due to
an imperfect load split if the MPLS-TP traffic is given queuing
priority (using strict priority and policing or shaping at ingress or
locally or weighted queuing locally). This can be accomplished using
the Traffic Class field and Diffserv treatment of traffic
[RFC5462][RFC2475]. In the event of congestion due to load
imbalance, other traffic will suffer as long as there is a minority
of MPLS-TP traffic.
If MPLS-TP LSP are carried within MPLS LSP and ELI and EL are used,
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
requirement MP#2 is satisfied, but without a signaling extension,
requirement MP#3 is not satisfied if there is a need to rebalance the
load on any composite link carrying the MPLS server LSP. Load
rebalance is generally needed only when congestion occurs, therefore
restricting MPLS-TP to be carried only over MPLS LSP that are known
to traverse only links which are expected to be uncongested can
satisfy requirement MP#3.
Requirement MP#4 can be supported using administrative attributes.
Administrative attributes are defined in [RFC3209]. Some
configuration is required to support this.
4. MPLS-TP as a Server Layer for MPLS
Carrying MPLS LSP which are larger than a component link over a
MPLS-TP server layer requires that the large MPLS client layer LSP be
accommodated by multiple MPLS-TP server layer LSPs. MPLS multipath
can be used in the client layer MPLS.
Creating multiple MPLS-TP server layer LSP places a greater ILM
scaling burden on the LSR. High bandwidth MPLS cores with a smaller
amount of nodes have the greatest tendency to require LSP in excess
of component links, therefore the reduction in number of nodes
offsets the impact of increasing the number of server layer LSP in
parallel. Today, only in cases where deployed LSR ILM are small
would this be an issue.
The most significant disadvantage of MPLS-TP as a Server Layer for
MPLS is that the use MPLS-TP server layer LSP reduces the efficiency
of carrying the MPLS client layer. The service which provides by far
the largest offered load in provider networks is Internet, for which
the LSP capacity reservations are predictions of expected load. Many
of these MPLS LSP may be smaller than component link capacity. Using
MPLS-TP as a server layer results in bin packing problems for these
smaller LSP. For those LSP that are larger than component link
capacity, their capacity are not increments of convenient capacity
increments such as 10Gb/s. Using MPLS-TP as an underlying server
layer greatly reduces the ability of the client layer MPLS LSP to
share capacity. For example, when one MPLS LSP is underutilizing its
predicted capacity, the fixed allocation of MPLS-TP to component
links may not allow another LSP to exceed its predicted capacity.
Using MPLS-TP as a server layer may result in less efficient use of
resources may result in a less cost effective network.
No additional requirements beyond MPLS-TP as it is now currently
defined are required to support MPLS-TP as a Server Layer for MPLS.
It is therefore viable but has some undesirable characteristics
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
discussed above.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
6. Security Considerations
This document specifies requirements with discussion of framework for
solutions using existing MPLS and MPLS-TP mechanisms. The
requirements and framework are related to the coexistence of MPLS/
GMPLS (without MPLS-TP) when used over a packet network, MPLS-TP, and
multipath. The combination of MPLS, MPLS-TP, and multipath does not
introduce any new security threats. The security considerations for
MPLS/GMPLS and for MPLS-TP are documented in [RFC5920] and
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework].
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.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-entropy-label]
Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-06 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework]
Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., and R.
Graveman, "MPLS-TP Security Framework",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-04 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[IEEE-802.1AX]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE
Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link
Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>.
[ITU-T.G.800]
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP and MPLS Multipath October 2012
ITU-T, "Unified functional architecture of transport
networks", 2007, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G/
recommendation.asp?parent=T-REC-G.800>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[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.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, January 2010.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Author's Address
Curtis Villamizar (editor)
Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting
Email: curtis@occnc.com
Villamizar Expires April 5, 2013 [Page 9]