Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01

[Anton Smirnov <[e-mail]>]

    Hi Greg,

 > Would
 > IPFRR still be considered FRR if restoration of connectivity relies on
 > flooding

I don't understand the question. Failed IPFRR is still FRR. But failed one.
    We all know that each technology has its limitations. Not full 
coverage is known limitation of IPFRR. And it is also understood that 
when IPFRR fails routers have to resort to traditional convergence. But 
this doesn't change the fact that flooding is not part of IPFRR. 
Flooding is part of traditional convergence.
    Flooding and traditional convergence are required even if IPFRR 
succeeds because router can't run forever on repair routes. So flooding 
is always part of the bigger picture, it just is not part of IPFRR 
technology itself.

Anton


On 04/12/2011 06:45 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Curtis,
> thank you for the explanation on IPFRR. I know that things are sometimes
> are not what we call them  but I believe that if MPLS FRR doesn't work
> for some reason and LSP rerouted to restore service it's not FRR. Would
> IPFRR still be considered FRR if restoration of connectivity relies on
> flooding  and route convergence, not on use of pre-calculated RIB?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     In message <BANLkTinDb-P=[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Greg Mirsky writes:
>      >
>      > Dear Anton,
>      >
>      > I believe that MPLS-TE FRR does not address tasks 2 through 5 in the
>      > same sense as it is required in IPFRR. Certainly, protecting LSP has
>      > to be calculated by SPF, signaled and RIB/FIB/HW properly
>     updated. But
>      > these actions all done prior to when an MPLS-TE deemed protected.
>     Upon
>      > Fault detection the only action required is on the PLR.
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      > Greg
>
>     Greg,
>
>     IPFRR does not need tasks 2 through 5 either.  OTOH, IPFRR coverage is
>     often less than full coverage.
>
>     In both MPLS FRR and IPFRR, if protection works it is handled entirely
>     by the PLR.  In IPFRR, some PLRs have no fast protection and have to
>     rely on flooding.  In IPFRR and MPLS FRR sometimes unexpected multiple
>     failures occur since a previously unknown shared resource is
>     discovered the hard way or an extroidinary event occurs (ie: two
>     fibers on same fault line, etc).  In this case even protection from
>     the MPLS FRR PLR doesn't work.
>
>     In MPLS if a reroute is required, the CSPF load being N^2 log N (order
>     N CSPF computation have to be run), the LSA flooding has no
>     significant impact at all.  In IPFRR where only one SPF has to be run,
>     flooding is still not the primary contributor to convergence time.  It
>     may be a combination of 4 and 5 below.
>
>     Curtis
>
>
>      > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Anton Smirnov
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>      >
>      > >   Hi all,
>      > >   even though I put OSPF-FN draft in the subject it is the
>     framework
>      > > approach FN-FRWK which draws more questions. At the very first
>     line it
>      > > reads:
>      > >
>      > >  This document describes an architectural work that competes
>     with the
>      > >> IP Fast Re-Route (IPFRR) solution
>      > >>
>      > >
>      > > Lets compare speed of traffic restoration between the two. So,
>     traditional
>      > > OSPF convergence time consists of the sum of:
>      > >
>      > > 1. Failure detection
>      > > 2. LSA origination
>      > > 3. Per-hop flooding
>      > > 4. SPF (delay and calculation itself)
>      > > 5. RIB/FIB/hardware update
>      > >
>      > > 3, 4 and 5 all can be significant depending on network size,
>     number of
>      > > routes etc.
>      > >
>      > > FRR (both MPLS TE FRR and IPFRR) address 2-5. With good
>     implementation FRR
>      > > should be by order of magnitude as fast as 1.
>      > >
>      > > FN addresses only 3. It doesn't address 4 and 5. As I wrote
>     above in many
>      > > networks they are at least as significant as 3.
>      > >
>      > > So, by the speed of convergence FN doesn't look to come
>     anywhere close to
>      > > FRR.
>      > >
>      > >
>      > >   Now, lets look at FN from another perspective. Router
>     announcing failure
>      > > doesn't benefit from FN. Its immediate neighbors do not benefit
>     from FN
>      > > either - 1 hop traditional flooding should be as fast as 1 hop
>     FN flooding.
>      > > It is only distant routers who benefit from the FN - and the
>     farther is
>      > > router from the failure the bigger is gain.
>      > >   On the other hand, if there exists path alternative to the
>     failed one
>      > > then _typically_ it is not too far (in terms of hops) from the
>     failing one.
>      > > I.e. from point of view of router which is 15 hops away from
>     the point of
>      > > failure it is less likely that routes will change. BTW, ordered
>     FIB approach
>      > > builds on concept that 'old' routes on remote routers do not
>     cause traffic
>      > > blackholing or loops.
>      > >
>      > >   The big problem with FN approach is that routers remote from
>     the point of
>      > > failure benefit most - but at the same time their convergence
>     is the least
>      > > important for end-to-end traffic restoration.
>      > >   The worst case network for FN is fully meshed area. Since
>     each router is
>      > > 1 hop away from every other one FN will give no benefits.
>      > >   The best case network for FN is an area consisting of one big
>     ring. In
>      > > this case alternative path is on diametrically opposite end of
>     the network
>      > > and convergence of remote routers is crucial.
>      > >
>      > >   So yeah, FN will help remote routers to converge faster. But
>     how much
>      > > this will improve end-to-end traffic restoration in real
>     networks? I suspect
>      > > not much. Some degree of meshiness in network topology is the norm.
>      > >
>      > >   FN is an interesting proposal but it is very far from being
>     convincing.
>      > > Pitching FN against FRR is a mistake.
>      > >
>      > > --
>      > > Anton
>
>