Re: [Pce] Virtual Network Topology (VNT) changes and IP layer routingloops

Kohei Shiomoto <shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp> Tue, 06 June 2006 23:23 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fnktk-0000ge-Ce for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:23:44 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fnkth-0000t8-TE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:23:44 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1FnkiX-000C3U-Ux for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:12:09 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [129.60.39.102] (helo=tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>) id 1FnkiV-000C2x-KG for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:12:07 +0000
Received: from vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.110]) by tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k56NBoYp008121; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:11:50 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.112]) by vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k56NBnWf021495; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:11:49 +0900 (JST)
Received: from nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.100]) by mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k56NBmmv024588; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:11:48 +0900 (JST)
Received: from eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.69]) by nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k56NBmgP020595; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:11:48 +0900 (JST)
Received: from eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k56NBmWc001179; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:11:48 +0900 (JST)
Received: from imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imc0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.141]) by eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k56NBlq2001176; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:11:47 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([129.60.80.125]) by imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k56NBamF004857; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:11:47 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <44860BA7.2090301@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:11:35 +0900
From: Kohei Shiomoto <shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja-JP; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050728
X-Accept-Language: ja, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Bernstein <gregb@grotto-networking.com>
CC: Don Fedyk <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Virtual Network Topology (VNT) changes and IP layer routingloops
References: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA408BEAF1C@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> <44848FC5.7000902@grotto-networking.com>
In-Reply-To: <44848FC5.7000902@grotto-networking.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2

Hi Greg

Thank you for your kind notice.

I think that the avoiding micro-loop is an important work. Micro-loop
could unnecessarily amplify traffic load as much as 128 times, which
should be a serious problem for today's wire-speed packet forwarding at
high-speed link.

So far micro-loop avoidance has been discussed in the context of
maintenance operations including link install/removal, IGP link cost
change, etc. As you pointed out, micro-loop may form in the process of
VNT reconfiguration if IP datagram is forwarded directly on top of VNT
(if we use explicit-routed LSP, we could avoid micro-loop). Micro-loop
avoidance should also be considered in the context of VNT reconfiguration.

Thank you again for your pointer.
--
Kohei


Greg Bernstein wrote:

> Hi Don, I'm using the term "Virtual Network Topology" related to the 
> data plane not the control plane.  For example, when I interconnect IP 
> routers via a WDM or SDH switching layer the resulting IP layer topology 
> is termed a "virtual network topology" since the connectivity amongst 
> the IP routers is not necessarily the same as the fiber topology. It is 
> these changes to the IP layer topology that can cause the traffic 
> disrupting micro loops.  Note that other ways that micro loops occur 
> are: (1) during IGP link weight adjustments and (2) maintenance operations.
> 
> The connection to GMPLS/PCE is we are trying to make setting up these 
> virtual topologies quicker and potential for traffic engineering 
> purposes. There have been some good papers in the literature on using 
> GMPLS and advanced algorithms for the VNT design problem.
> 
> Greg B.
> 
> Don Fedyk wrote:
> 
>> Hi Greg
>>
>> Whoa....
>>   [Snip]
>> 1) These virtual topologies are for control traffic and they are solid
>> most of the time.
>> 2) The existing data traffic is not disrupted when the control traffic
>> has microloops. 3) There may be a delay in signaling of new or 
>> rerouted connections when
>> the control traffic has microloops. This is analogous to Graceful
>> recovery of the control plane where the data plane is momentarily unable
>> to adapt to new changes.
>> 4) Many of the optical technologies we have do not need response to
>> signaling in less than 100s of milliseconds so the delay is not
>> critical.
>> 5) We need a clear separation of protection which can be locally driven
>> and fast (50 msec) and routing and rerouting which are slower
>> restoration mechanisms. As long as protection mechanisms are independent
>> of the control plane primary protection is safe IMHO.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> At the Routing working group, Alex's draft 
>>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-01.txt provides some analysis and 
>>> a method to reduce the impact (duration too) of the transient loops.  
>>> More recently the drafts:
>>> (1) draft-bryant-shand-lf-applicability-01.txt
>>> (2) draft-bryant-shand-lf-conv-frmwk-02.txt
>>> (3) draft-francois-ordered-fib-01.txt
>>> Address this problem more generally including in (3) a method that 
>>> guarantee loop free convergence.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>
>> Loop Free Alternates are a good thing.  But with more advanced
>> mechanisms it is very hard to determine if the cure is worse than the
>> symptoms.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> The problem is that these have generated very little interest at the 
>>> RTG WG and may not move forward.  This area is not within PCE or 
>>> CCAMPs charter but can have an impact on the adoption of GMPLS in 
>>> multi-layer/region networking. If you're interested please take a 
>>> look and comment to the RTG WG.  Note I wasn't involved with writing 
>>> these, but came across them when considering the effects of GMPLS 
>>> changes on the IP layer VNT.
>>>     
>>
>>
>> There was a lot of interest and a genuine amount of push back.
>> Personally I would be very concerned about tight coupling of a control
>> plane convergence to impacts on a GMPLS control data plane.
>> Regards,
>> Don
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Greg B.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ===================================================
>>> Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
>>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 


-- 
Kohei Shiomoto
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories