1 / 6

Thomas Eriksson, TeliaSonera Rajiv Papneja, Isocore Jay Karthik, Cisco Systems

Thomas Eriksson, TeliaSonera Rajiv Papneja, Isocore Jay Karthik, Cisco Systems. IETF BMWG LDP Data Plane Convergence Benchmarking. 66th IETF Meeting Montreal. Motivation and Background. First introduced in February 2004 Standard for LDP data plane convergence benchmarking needed

charlesrandolph
Download Presentation

Thomas Eriksson, TeliaSonera Rajiv Papneja, Isocore Jay Karthik, Cisco Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thomas Eriksson, TeliaSonera Rajiv Papneja, Isocore Jay Karthik, Cisco Systems IETF BMWGLDP Data Plane Convergence Benchmarking 66th IETF Meeting Montreal

  2. Motivation and Background • First introduced in February 2004 • Standard for LDP data plane convergence benchmarking needed • Current document - draft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term-03.txt • MPLS working group conducted LDP Operator Survey – results - draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-experience-00 August ’05 • Results shows operational issues to fall in one of the 3 categories • Configuration Issues, Vendor bugs, Protocol issues • Protocol issues were tied to syncronization between LDP and IGP resulting in • slow convergence and traffic blackholing • Operators would like to verify the traffic loss time in their networks for a number of scenarios and possible also compare different vendors implementations • Vendors would like to use a common convergence benchmarking technique to get uniform results in their lab, and in the customer’s lab • Test tool vendors like to have the same approach to testing as Service Providers and Vendors

  3. Scope • The scope of this effort is to benchmark the dataplane convergence on LSRs that use LDP to distribute labels. The payload of label switched packets could be P2P or P2MP services transport over MPLS (encompassing- VPWS, VPLS). • I.e. traffic sent over labels received via targeted LDP sessions are in scope. • The scope includes considerations to packet loss, duplicate packets and packet ordering but not packet corruption. • Other protocols that allow for label exchange are outside the scope of this work. Also at this the methodology about to be proposed applies to intra-AS only. Inter AS scenarios are out of scope. LDP over RSVP-TE tunnels is out of scope.

  4. Terminologydraft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term-03.txt • Currently at rev -03 • The latest version of terminology contains new terms • More new terms will be added if needed for methodology. • We have presented the terminology in the past IETF meetings and have also shown some methodologies for discussions • Following are new terms added to -02 since the last meeting. • Equal Cost Multi FECs • Targeted Peers/FECs • FEC convergence at various locations etc

  5. MethodologyPlanned Before Next Meeting • Interesting FEC convergence events • IGP metric change • IGP LSP/LSA with remote topology change • Lost IGP adjacency • Lost LDP session • Label withdrawal • Interface shutdown (local/remote) • Fiber pull (local/remote) • Removed IP address

  6. Next steps • LDP data plane convergence methodology draft planned to be published before IETF 67 • Given the importance of benchmarking LDP data plane convergence, can we make this an official work-item Comments?

More Related