1 / 10

RTGWG

RTGWG. IETF-62 Minneapolis, MN. Agenda. Agenda bashing, aministrivia (chairs) [5m] 00:05 Document status (chairs) [5m] 00:10 Base IP FRR spec update (Alia) [20m] 00:30 Micro-loop prevention DT update (Alex) [30m] 01:00

terena
Download Presentation

RTGWG

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. RTGWG IETF-62 Minneapolis, MN

  2. Agenda • Agenda bashing, aministrivia (chairs) [5m] 00:05 • Document status (chairs) [5m] 00:10 • Base IP FRR spec update (Alia) [20m] 00:30 • Micro-loop prevention DT update (Alex) [30m] 01:00 • Advancements in Advanced FRR (Alia, Mike, et al) [45m] 01:45

  3. Document status • GTSM rev: will LC • IPFRR framework: no change • Basic FRR spec: updated • draft-atlas-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-01 • Will move to WG status • Objections now or on the list

  4. Base FRR spec update

  5. Micro-loop prevent DT report • Methods: • Incremental cost changes • Sync’ed FIB installation • Path locking via safe neighbors (PLSN) • Ordered FIB installation (OFIB) • Tunnel-based • Combination of PLSN with OFIB or tunnels

  6. Micro-loop DT • Eliminated: • Incremental cost change • Multiple convergence cycles per topo event • Excessively long convergence: O(h) • Sync’ed FIB installation • Tight synchronization (within 10ms) at the LC level required • Puts strong constrains on implementations (clock resolution, timer accuracy) • Service dependency on NTP • Operational concerns (“is my network sync’ed?”, “what happened?”)

  7. DT: PLSN • Doc: draft-zinin-microloop-analysis-00.txt • Pros: • Easy to understand (route metric-based) • Const convergence time • Works with any topology changes • Allows SRLGs • Eliminates ~90% of 2-hop loops • Coverage similar to FRR • Can be augmented with OFIB or tunnels to get 100% • Cons • Coverage less than 100% • Looped traffic may congest loop-free • Asymmetric link costs require stricter safety condition (downstream BF)

  8. DT: Ordered FIB install • Pros: • 100% coverage, including asymmetric link costs • SRLGs supported, may require per-group timers • Completely control-plane based • Cons: • Worst case convergence time can be long • May become greater than current convergence times • Increases risk of second topo event • Can be improved with signaling

  9. DT: Tunnels • Pros: • Covers 100% • Const convergence time • SRLGs? • Cons: • Requires “covert” announcements in RPs • With basic FRR: requires an additional data-plane mechanism • Tunnels impose different ops and sec considerations • Distributed version has relatively high complexity

  10. DT: next • Next step is come up with recommendation for the basic FRR • PLSN looks most promising and allows further extensions if deemed necessary • DT should get back to the WG by Paris (optimistically within 1 month)

More Related