Resilient MPLS Rings: Draft-Kompella-Mpls-Rmr Kireeti Kompella Ietf 91

Resilient MPLS Rings
draft-kompella-mpls-rmr
Kireeti Kompella
IETF 91
Using MPLS in Ring

Topologies
A ring is the most efficient topology that
offers resilience
but MPLS resilience in rings is far from efficient
Rings are often used in access and

aggregation where bandwidth is precious
but pre-assigning bandwidth may be wasteful
Rings are a simple topology, and there are

lots of them
so configuring them should be as simple as
possible
MPLS for Ring Transport

The goal here is to identify and address
issues in running MPLS as a transport
protocol in access rings
Basically, to do what MPLS-TP set out to do, to
replace TDM with packet, but in an efficient way
To achieve this, we use IGP for ring

discovery and RSVP-TE or LDP for signaling
but in a new way
Some of the differences from traditional
signaling will be explained
New Paradigm: Resilient MPLS Rings

Dont configure LSPs configure MPLS
rings
Dont configure and signal n(n-1) LSPs
LSPs come up on their own; no need for EROs
Dont configure bandwidths

bandwidths are deduced from traffic or
services
Dont configure protection paths, bypass

LSPs or detours
protection happens naturally
Dont configure hierarchical LSPs
Ring Auto-discovery
Requirements: ring nodes are assigned to a
ring ID
Ring links are discovered and autobundled
Non-ring links are identified as such
All nodes agree on clockwise and

counterclockwise
Each node knows its CW and CCW neighbor
Node insertion and removal is handled
Ring LSPs: Basics

17
R0
17
R9
17
R8
17
R1
CCW
CW
A ring LSP starts and ends at the same

node a pair of counter-rotating LSPs.
17
R2
One direction is called clockwise (CW),

and the other counterclockwise (CCW).
17
R3
17
R4
17
R7
17
R6
17
R5
Ring LSP RL1 starts and ends on R1 and

is a multipoint LSP with egress R1
Each node can send traffic to R1 either
CW (e.g., R6) or CCW (e.g., R4).
Similarly, each node R0, R2, R3, , and R9
has a ring LSP.
A ring of N nodes has N ring LSPs, not N*(N-1)!
Ring LSPs: Signaling

17
R9
17
R0
17
R1
17
R8
Path messages are automatically sent

when an MPLS ring is configured, not
because of specific LSP configuration.
17
R2
17
R3
17
R4
17
R7
17
R6
17
R5
Node 2 sends 10 Resv

messages CCW, one for each of
ring LSPs 1, 2, 3, , 10. These
contain CW labels, and
establish the CW LSPs.
Node 2 also sends 10 Path
messages CW, one for each of
ring LSPs 1, 2, 3, , 10. These
contain CCW labels, and establish
the CCW LSPs.
Ring LSPs: Protection

17
R9
17
R0
17
R1
17
R8
Since ring LSP RL1 is bidirectional,

there is a path from node 8 to node 1 in
both directions, CCW (via node 9) and
CW (via node 7). This is used to protect
ring LSP 1, say from node 6 to node 1.
17
R2
17
R3
17
R4
17
R7
17
R5
17
R6
CW
CCW
If the link between node 8 and node 9

fails, traffic to node 1 is immediately put
on the reverse LSP to node 1.
When the notification of the failure
propagates to node 7, the traffic on RL1
is diverted at node 7 to the upstream
direction.
When node 6 learns, it sends the traffic
CCW to node 1. Effectively, the traffic
has switched to the other direction.
Ring LSPs: Node Failure

17
R9
17
R0
17
R1
17
R8
17
R2
Node (say R1) failure is similar to link

failure stuff just works. Of course, RL1
clearly cannot recover its egress has
failed.
17
R3
17
R4
17
R7
17
R5
17
R6
CW
CCW
However, there is the danger of a loop:

1. R0 protects by sending traffic CCW;
2. R2 protects by sending traffic CW!
This can be dealt with by TTL
or by adding a new ESPL to indicate
failure recovery
Ring LSPs: Bandwidth

Management
17
17
17
R9
R0
R1
17
R8
17
R3
17
R4
17
R7
1G
17
R2
17
R5
17
R6
2G
Ring LSP RL1 starts with 0 bandwidth. As

services are provisioned over RL1, their
bandwidths are added to the LSP from where
they enter the ring to the egress node.
Say a 1G PW is provisioned from node 6 to
node 1. The LSP attempts to increase the
bandwidth from node 6 to node 1. If
successful, the service is accepted. Similarly
for a 2G PW from node 5 to node 1.
The resulting signaled bandwidth in the CW
direction for ring LSP 1 is 0 from node 1 to
node 5; node 5 signals a bandwidth of 1G;
node 6-10 signal a bandwidth of 3G.
Conclusion
Rings are indeed a special topology
MPLS on rings needs to be:
easy from configuration point of view;
efficient from protection PoV;
more flexible from a bandwidth PoV
Ring LSPs appear to meet these

requirements
Thanks for your questions and comments
on the list
Please keep them coming!

Resilient MPLS Rings: Draft-Kompella-Mpls-Rmr Kireeti Kompella Ietf 91

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilient MPLS Rings: Draft-Kompella-Mpls-Rmr Kireeti Kompella Ietf 91

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilient MPLS Rings: Draft-Kompella-Mpls-Rmr Kireeti Kompella Ietf 91

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilient MPLS Rings

Using MPLS in Ring

Rings are often used in access and

Rings are a simple topology, and there are

MPLS for Ring Transport

To achieve this, we use IGP for ring

New Paradigm: Resilient MPLS Rings

Dont configure bandwidths

Dont configure protection paths, bypass

Dont configure hierarchical LSPs

All nodes agree on clockwise and

Ring LSPs: Basics

A ring LSP starts and ends at the same

One direction is called clockwise (CW),

Ring LSP RL1 starts and ends on R1 and

A ring of N nodes has N ring LSPs, not N*(N-1)!

Ring LSPs: Signaling

Path messages are automatically sent

Node 2 sends 10 Resv

Ring LSPs: Protection

Since ring LSP RL1 is bidirectional,

If the link between node 8 and node 9

Ring LSPs: Node Failure

Node (say R1) failure is similar to link

However, there is the danger of a loop:

Ring LSPs: Bandwidth

Ring LSP RL1 starts with 0 bandwidth. As

Ring LSPs appear to meet these

You might also like