Comparison of restoration requirements between transport and packet networks

"Richard Rabbat" <rabbat@fla.fujitsu.com> Wed, 10 September 2003 19:11 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:17:49 +0000
From: Richard Rabbat <rabbat@fla.fujitsu.com>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>
Cc: Vishal Sharma <v.sharma@ieee.org>, 'Richard Rabbat' <rabbat@fla.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Comparison of restoration requirements between transport and packet networks
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:11:02 -0700
Message-ID: <002301c377cf$478d8b20$3d3ba485@PHOENIX>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C37794.9B2EB320"

Hi Zafar, CCAMP,

 

 

During discussions with several colleagues within the CCAMP WG, it has
become clear that it would be useful to clarify some of the fundamental
differences between restoration in packet networks and that in transport
networks.

This is because this difference, together with the time criticality of
restoration at the transport layer, requires the development of techniques
for time-bounded notification. It would then be useful to discuss the
solutions proposed in draft-rabbat-fault-notification-protocol-03 for such
notification.

 

We are in the process of preparing a contribution on this subject, but
thought it would be useful to highlight a few key points on the mailing
list, so that we can elicit feedback and comments from the WG.

 

In normal packet networks (MPLS networks) one can pre-signal *and*
pre-configure a backup LSP for a working LSP. This is because selecting a
label at a node for a backup LSP is sufficient to be able to switch traffic
for that LSP when that traffic arrives. If resources are required for the
backup LSP (buffers and bandwidth), they too can be reserved in advance
(during the LSP signaling phase), but can still be used by low-priority or
extra-traffic LSPs as long as there is no failure on the working LSP.

 

This is true even for shared mesh restoration in MPLS networks. In that
case, multiple labels would be assigned, one for each of the backup LSPs
(corresponding to link and/or node disjoint working LSPs) transiting a node
on the shared backup path, but only one set of resources (buffers,
bandwidth) would be reserved (if such resource reservation was needed).

 

In transport networks, however, one can pre-signal but not pre-configure a
backup LSP (unless one was doing just 1+1 protection). This is because, in
transport networks, if an LSP is established (that is, it is
cross-connected) then the full bandwidth of the LSP is automatically
*consumed*, irrespective of whether traffic actually flows on this LSP. 

 

For this reason, to implement shared restoration schemes in transport
networks (and allow extra-traffic) a backup LSP cannot be cross-connected
until *after* the specific failure for which this backup LSP was
pre-signaled has occured.

 

Now, if signaling-based notification is used in transport networks, an
*additional phase of signaling* is required along the backup path to enable
nodes along that path to reconfigure themselves (this is well-described in
the functional specification document

of the P&R Design Team). This lengthens the time to recover from the
failure. Depending on the layer at which recovery is being performed this
may or may not be acceptable.

 

In the specific case of transport networks, restoration is typically a
time-critical activity, so this round-trip signaling delay could be
unacceptable when time-bounded notification and recovery is desired.

In addition, signaling individual LSPs or individual LSP bundles may create
buffering problems that makes signaling time unbounded.

 

If instead, the information about a failure is flooded to all the network
nodes, and the backup paths are selected intelligently (as described in
draft-rabbat-fault-notification-protocol-03.txt), this additional signaling
hand-shake delay can be eliminated.  This is because by flooding the
information about a fault on a working LSP, one can inform, in parallel, all
the nodes lying along the path of the backup LSP. Thus, the repair point(s)
upon learning of the fault holds off activating the backup LSP(s) for an
appropriate time in which all nodes along the corresponding backup path(s)
will have reconfigured themselves.

 

We would also like to get feedback on a suitable protocol that could
implement time-critical flooding notification.

 

Comments, thoughts and questions are welcome!

 

--

Richard Rabbat, Ph.D.

Member of Research Staff, Fujitsu Labs of America

1240 E Arques Ave, MS 345, Sunnyvale, CA 94085

Phone: 408-530-4537. Fax: 408-530-4581. Cell: 650-714-7618