Routing Area Working Group S. Litkowski Internet-Draft B. Decraene Intended status: Standards Track Orange Expires: October 7, 2016 C. Filsfils P. Francois Cisco Systems April 5, 2016 Microloop prevention by introducing a local convergence delay draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-01 Abstract This document describes a mechanism for link-state routing protocols to prevent local transient forwarding loops in case of link failure. This mechanism Proposes a two-steps convergence by introducing a delay between the convergence of the node adjacent to the topology change and the network wide convergence. As this mechanism delays the IGP convergence it may only be used for planned maintenance or when fast reroute protects the traffic between the link failure and the IGP convergence. The proposed mechanism will be limited to link down event in order to keep simplicity. Simulations using real network topologies have been performed and show that local loops are a significant portion (>50%) of the total forwarding loops. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Transient forwarding loops side effects . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Fast reroute unefficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Network congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Overview of the solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Current IGP reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Local events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Local delay for link down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Applicable case : local loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Non applicable case : remote loops . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Local link down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. Local and remote event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.3. Aborting local delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Comparison with other solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. PLSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. OFIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. Existing implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. Introduction Micro-forwarding loops and some potential solutions are well described in [RFC5715]. This document describes a simple targeted mechanism that solves micro-loops local to the failure; based on network analysis, these are a significant portion of the micro- forwarding loops. A simple and easily deployable solution to these local micro-loops is critical because these local loops cause traffic loss after an advanced fast-reroute alternate has been used (see Section 2.1). Consider the case in Figure 1 where S does not have an LFA to protect its traffic to D. That means that all non-D neighbors of S on the topology will send to S any traffic destined to D if a neighbor did not, then that neighbor would be loop-free. Regardless of the advanced fast-reroute technique used, when S converges to the new topology, it will send its traffic to a neighbor that was not loop- free and thus cause a local micro-loop. The deployment of advanced fast-reroute techniques motivates this simple router-local mechanism to solve this targeted problem. This solution can be work with the various techniques described in [RFC5715]. 1 D ------ C | | 1 | | 5 | | S ------ B 1 Figure 1 When S-D fails, a transient forwarding loop may appear between S and B if S updates its forwarding entry to D before B. 2. Transient forwarding loops side effects Even if they are very limited in duration, transient forwarding loops may cause high damage for the network. Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 2.1. Fast reroute unefficiency D 1 | | 1 A ------ B | | ^ 10 | | 5 | T | | | E--------C | 1 1 | S Figure 2 - RSVPTE FRR case In figure 2, a RSVP-TE tunnel T, provisionned on C and terminating on B, is used to protect against C-B link failure (IGP shortcut activated on C). Primary path of T is C->B and FRR is activated on T providing a FRR bypass or detour using path C->E->A->B. On C, nexthop to D is tunnel T thanks to IGP shortcut. When C-B link fails : 1. C detects the failure, and updates the tunnel path using preprogrammed FRR path, traffic path from S to D is : S->E->C->E->A->B->A->D . 2. In parallel, on router C, both IGP convergence and TE tunnel convergence (tunnel path recomputation) are occuring : * T path is recomputed : C->E->A->B * IGP path to D is recomputed : C->E->A->D 3. On C, tail-end of the TE tunnel (router B) is no more on SPT to D, so C does not encapsulate anymore the traffic to D using the tunnel T and update forwarding entry to D using nexthop E. If C updates its forwarding entry to D before router E, there would be a transient forwarding loop between C and E until E has converged. +-----------+------------+------------------+-----------------------+ | Network | Time | Router C events | Router E events | | condition | | | | +-----------+------------+------------------+-----------------------+ | S->D | | | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | | | | | | S->D | t0 | Link B-C fails | Link B-C fails | | Traffic | | | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | | t0+20msec | C detects the | | | | | failure | | | | | | | | S->D | t0+40msec | C activates FRR | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | | t0+50msec | C updates its | | | | | local LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+60msec | C schedules SPF | | | | | (100ms) | | | | | | | | | t0+70msec | C floods its | | | | | local updated | | | | | LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+87msec | | E receives LSP/LSA | | | | | from C and schedules | | | | | SPF (100ms) | | | | | | | | t0+117msec | | E floods LSP/LSA from | | | | | C | | | | | | | | t0+160msec | C computes SPF | | | | | | | | | t0+165msec | C starts | | | | | updating its | | | | | RIB/FIB | | | | | | | | | t0+193msec | | E computes SPF | | | | | | | | t0+199msec | | E starts updating its | | | | | RIB/FIB | | | | | | | S->D | t0+255msec | C updates its | | | Traffic | | RIB/FIB for D | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | | t0+340msec | C convergence | | | | | ends | | | | | | | | S->D | t0+443msec | | E updates its RIB/FIB | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | Traffic | | | for D | | OK | | | | | | | | | | | t0+470msec | | E convergence ends | +-----------+------------+------------------+-----------------------+ Route computation event time scale The issue described here is completely independent of the fast- reroute mechanism involved (TE FRR, LFA/rLFA, MRT ...). Fast-reroute is working perfectly but ensures protection, by definition, only until the PLR has converged. When implementing FRR, a service provider wants to guarantee a very limited loss of connectivity time. The previous example shows that the benefit of FRR may be completely lost due to a transient forwarding loop appearing when PLR has converged. Delaying FIB updates after IGP convergence may permit to keep fast-reroute path until neighbor has converged and preserve customer traffic. 2.2. Network congestion 1 D ------ C | | 1 | | 5 | | A -- S ------ B / | 1 F E In the figure above, as presented in Section 1, when link S-D fails, a transient forwarding loop may appear between S and B for destination D. The traffic on S-B link will constantly increase due to the looping traffic to D. Depending on TTL of packets, traffic rate destinated to D and bandwidth of link, the S-B link may be congestioned in few hundreds of milliseconds and will stay overloaded until the loop is solved. Congestion introduced by transient forwarding loops are problematic as they are impacting traffic that is not directly concerned by the failing network component. In our example, the congestion of S-B link will impact customer traffic that is not directly concerned by the failure : e.g. A to B, F to B, E to B. Class of services may be implemented to mitigate the congestion but some traffic not directly concerned by the failure would still be dropped as a router is not able to identify looped traffic from normal traffic. Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 3. Overview of the solution This document defines a two-step convergence initiated by the router detecting the failure and advertising the topological changes in the IGP. This introduces a delay between the convergence of the local router and the network wide convergence. The proposed solution is kept limited to local link down events. This ordered convergence, is similar to the ordered FIB proposed defined in [RFC6976], but limited to only one hop distance. As a consequence, it is simpler and becomes a local only feature not requiring interoperability; at the cost of only covering the transient forwarding loops involving this local router. The proposed mechanism also reuses some concept described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis] with some limitation. 4. Specification 4.1. Definitions This document will refer to the following existing IGP timers: o LSP_GEN_TIMER: to batch multiple local events in one single local LSP update. It is often associated with damping mechanism to slowdown reactions by incrementing the timer when multiple consecutive events are detected. o SPF_TIMER: to batch multiple events in one single computation. It is often associated with damping mechanism to slowdown reactions by incrementing the timer when the IGP is instable. This document introduces the following a new timer : o ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER: slowdown the local node convergence in case of link down events. 4.2. Current IGP reactions Upon a change of status on an adjacency/link, the existing behavior of the router advertising the event is the following: 1. UP/Down event is notified to IGP. 2. IGP processes the notification and postpones the reaction in LSP_GEN_TIMER msec. Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 3. Upon LSP_GEN_TIMER expiration, IGP updates its LSP/LSA and floods it. 4. SPF is scheduled in SPF_TIMER msec. 5. Upon SPF_TIMER expiration, SPF is computed and RIB/FIB are updated. 4.3. Local events The mechanisms described in this document assume that there has been a single link failure as seen by the IGP area/level. If this assumption is violated (e.g. multiple links or nodes failed), then standard IP convergence MUST be applied (as described in Section 4.2). There are three types of single failures: local link, local node, and remote failure. Example : +--- E ----+--------+ | | | A ---- B -------- C ------ D Let B be the computing router when the link B-C fails. B updates its local LSP/LSA describing the link B->C as down, C does the same, and both start flooding their updated LSP/LSAs. During the SPF_TIMER period, B and C learn all the LSPs/LSAs to consider. B sees that C is flooding as down a link where B is the other end and that B and C are describing the same single event. Since B receives no other changes, B can determine that this is a local link failure. An implementation SHOULD implement a logic to correlate protocol messages (LSP/LSA) received during SPF scheduling and topology changes as multiple protocol messages may describe the same topology change. As a consequence, determining a particular topology change MUST be independent of the order of reception of those protocol messages. How the logic works is let to implementation details. Using this logic, if an implementation determines that the associated event is a single local link failure, then the router MAY use the mechanism described in this document, otherwise standard IP convergence MUST be used. 4.4. Local delay for link down Upon an adjacency/link down event, this document introduces a change in step 5 in order to delay the local convergence compared to the network wide convergence: the node SHOULD delay the forwarding entry Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 updates by ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER. Such delay SHOULD only be introduced if all the LSDB modifications processed are only reporting down local events . Note that determining that all topological change are only local down events requires analyzing all modified LSP/LSA as a local link or node failure will typically be notified by multiple nodes. If a subsequent LSP/LSA is received/updated and a new SPF computation is triggered before the expiration of ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER, then the same evaluation SHOULD be performed. As a result of this addition, routers local to the failure will converge slower than remote routers. Hence it SHOULD only be done for non urgent convergence, such as for administrative de-activation (maintenance) or when the traffic is Fast ReRouted. 5. Applicability As previously stated, the mechanism only avoids the forwarding loops on the links between the node local to the failure and its neighbor. Forwarding loops may still occur on other links. 5.1. Applicable case : local loops A ------ B ----- E | / | | / | G---D------------C F All the links have a metric of 1 Figure 2 Let us consider the traffic from G to F. The primary path is G->D->C->E->F. When link CE fails, if C updates its forwarding entry for F before D, a transient loop occurs. This is sub-optimal as C has FRR enabled and it breaks the FRR forwarding while all upstream routers are still forwarding the traffic to itself. By implementing the mechanism defined in this document on C, when the CE link fails, C delays the update of his forwarding entry to F, in order to let some time for D to converge. FRR keeps protecting the traffic during this period. When the timer expires on C, forwarding entry to F is updated. There is no transient forwarding loop on the link CD. 5.2. Non applicable case : remote loops Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 A ------ B ----- E --- H | | | | G---D--------C ------F --- J ---- K All the links have a metric of 1 except BE=15 Figure 3 Let us consider the traffic from G to K. The primary path is G->D->C->F->J->K. When the CF link fails, if C updates its forwarding entry to K before D, a transient loop occurs between C and D. By implementing the mechanism defined in this document on C, when the link CF fails, C delays the update of his forwarding entry to K, letting time for D to converge. When the timer expires on C, forwarding entry to F is updated. There is no transient forwarding loop between C and D. However, a transient forwarding loop may still occur between D and A. In this scenario, this mechanism is not enough to address all the possible forwarding loops. However, it does not create additional traffic loss. Besides, in some cases -such as when the nodes update their FIB in the following order C, A, D, for example because the router A is quicker than D to converge- the mechanism may still avoid the forwarding loop that was occuring. 6. Simulations Simulations have been run on multiple service provider topologies. So far, only link down event have been tested. +----------+------+ | Topology | Gain | +----------+------+ | T1 | 71% | | T2 | 81% | | T3 | 62% | | T4 | 50% | | T5 | 70% | | T6 | 70% | | T7 | 59% | | T8 | 77% | +----------+------+ Table 1: Number of Repair/Dst that may loop We evaluated the efficiency of the mechanism on eight different service provider topologies (different network size, design). The Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 benefit is displayed in the table above. The benefit is evaluated as follows: o We consider a tuple (link A-B, destination D, PLR S, backup nexthop N) as a loop if upon link A-B failure, the flow from a router S upstream from A (A could be considered as PLR also) to D may loop due to convergence time difference between S and one of his neighbor N. o We evaluate the number of potential loop tuples in normal conditions. o We evaluate the number of potential loop tuples using the same topological input but taking into account that S converges after N. o Gain is how much loops (remote and local) we succeed to suppress. On topology 1, 71% of the transient forwarding loops created by the failure of any link are prevented by implementing the local delay. The analysis shows that all local loops are obviously solved and only remote loops are remaining. 7. Deployment considerations Transient forwarding loops have the following drawbacks : o Limit FRR efficiency : even if FRR is activated in 50msec, as soon as PLR has converged, traffic may be affected by a transient loop. o It may impact traffic not directly concerned by the failure (due to link congestion). This local delay proposal is a transient forwarding loop avoidance mechanism (like OFIB). Even if it only address local transient loops, , the efficiency versus complexity comparison of the mechanism makes it a good solution. It is also incrementally deployable with incremental benefits, which makes it an attractive option for both vendors to implement and Service Providers to deploy. Delaying convergence time is not an issue if we consider that the traffic is protected during the convergence. 8. Examples We will consider the following figure for the associated examples : Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 D 1 | F----X | 1 | A ------ B | | ^ 10 | | 5 | T | | | E--------C | 1 1 | S The network above is considered to have a convergence time about 1 second, so ULOOP_DELAY_UP_TIMER and ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER will be adjusted to this value. We also consider FRR running on each node. 8.1. Local link down The table below describes the events and associating timing that happens on router C and E when link B-C goes down. As C detects a a single local event corresponding to a link down (its LSP + LSP from B received), it decides to apply the local delay down behavior and no microloop is formed. +-----------+-------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Network | Time | Router C events | Router E events | | condition | | | | +-----------+-------------+------------------+----------------------+ | S->D | | | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | S->D | t0 | Link B-C fails | Link B-C fails | | Traffic | | | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | | t0+20msec | C detects the | | | | | failure | | | | | | | | S->D | t0+40msec | C activates FRR | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | | t0+50msec | C updates its | | | | | local LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+60msec | C schedules SPF | | | | | (100ms) | | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | | | | | | | t0+67msec | C receives | | | | | LSP/LSA from B | | | | | | | | | t0+70msec | C floods its | | | | | local updated | | | | | LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+87msec | | E receives LSP/LSA | | | | | from C and schedules | | | | | SPF (100ms) | | | | | | | | t0+117msec | | E floods LSP/LSA | | | | | from C | | | | | | | | t0+160msec | C computes SPF | | | | | | | | | t0+165msec | C delays its | | | | | RIB/FIB update | | | | | (1 sec) | | | | | | | | | t0+193msec | | E computes SPF | | | | | | | | t0+199msec | | E starts updating | | | | | its RIB/FIB | | | | | | | | t0+443msec | | E updates its | | | | | RIB/FIB for D | | | | | | | | t0+470msec | | E convergence ends | | | | | | | | t0+1165msec | C starts | | | | | updating its | | | | | RIB/FIB | | | | | | | | | t0+1255msec | C updates its | | | | | RIB/FIB for D | | | | | | | | | t0+1340msec | C convergence | | | | | ends | | +-----------+-------------+------------------+----------------------+ Route computation event time scale Similarly, upon B-C link down event, if LSP/LSA from B is received before C detects the link failure, C will apply the route update delay if the local detection is part of the same SPF run. Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 +-----------+-------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Network | Time | Router C events | Router E events | | condition | | | | +-----------+-------------+------------------+----------------------+ | S->D | | | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | S->D | t0 | Link B-C fails | Link B-C fails | | Traffic | | | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | | t0+32msec | C receives | | | | | LSP/LSA from B | | | | | | | | | t0+33msec | C schedules SPF | | | | | (100ms) | | | | | | | | | t0+50msec | C detects the | | | | | failure | | | | | | | | S->D | t0+55msec | C activates FRR | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | | t0+55msec | C updates its | | | | | local LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+70msec | C floods its | | | | | local updated | | | | | LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+87msec | | E receives LSP/LSA | | | | | from C and schedules | | | | | SPF (100ms) | | | | | | | | t0+117msec | | E floods LSP/LSA | | | | | from C | | | | | | | | t0+160msec | C computes SPF | | | | | | | | | t0+165msec | C delays its | | | | | RIB/FIB update | | | | | (1 sec) | | | | | | | | | t0+193msec | | E computes SPF | | | | | | | | t0+199msec | | E starts updating | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | | | | its RIB/FIB | | | | | | | | t0+443msec | | E updates its | | | | | RIB/FIB for D | | | | | | | | t0+470msec | | E convergence ends | | | | | | | | t0+1165msec | C starts | | | | | updating its | | | | | RIB/FIB | | | | | | | | | t0+1255msec | C updates its | | | | | RIB/FIB for D | | | | | | | | | t0+1340msec | C convergence | | | | | ends | | +-----------+-------------+------------------+----------------------+ Route computation event time scale 8.2. Local and remote event The table below describes the events and associating timing that happens on router C and E when link B-C goes down, in addition F-X link will fail in the same time window. C will not apply the local delay because a non local topology change is also received. +-----------+------------+-----------------+------------------------+ | Network | Time | Router C events | Router E events | | condition | | | | +-----------+------------+-----------------+------------------------+ | S->D | | | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | S->D | t0 | Link B-C fails | Link B-C fails | | Traffic | | | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | | t0+20msec | C detects the | | | | | failure | | | | | | | | | t0+36msec | Link F-X fails | Link F-X fails | | | | | | | S->D | t0+40msec | C activates FRR | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | | t0+50msec | C updates its | | | | | local LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+54msec | C receives | | | | | LSP/LSA from F | | | | | and floods it | | | | | | | | | t0+60msec | C schedules SPF | | | | | (100ms) | | | | | | | | | t0+67msec | C receives | | | | | LSP/LSA from B | | | | | | | | | t0+69msec | | E receives LSP/LSA | | | | | from F, floods it and | | | | | schedules SPF (100ms) | | | | | | | | t0+70msec | C floods its | | | | | local updated | | | | | LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+87msec | | E receives LSP/LSA | | | | | from C | | | | | | | | t0+117msec | | E floods LSP/LSA from | | | | | C | | | | | | | | t0+160msec | C computes SPF | | | | | | | | | t0+165msec | C starts | | | | | updating its | | | | | RIB/FIB (NO | | | | | DELAY) | | | | | | | | | t0+170msec | | E computes SPF | | | | | | | | t0+173msec | | E starts updating its | | | | | RIB/FIB | | | | | | | S->D | t0+365msec | C updates its | | | Traffic | | RIB/FIB for D | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | S->D | t0+443msec | | E updates its RIB/FIB | | Traffic | | | for D | | OK | | | | | | | | | | | t0+450msec | C convergence | | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | | | ends | | | | | | | | | t0+470msec | | E convergence ends | | | | | | +-----------+------------+-----------------+------------------------+ Route computation event time scale 8.3. Aborting local delay The table below describes the events and associating timing that happens on router C and E when link B-C goes down, in addition F-X link will fail during local delay run. C will first apply local delay, but when the new event happens, it will fallback to the standard convergence mechanism without delaying route insertion anymore. In this example, we consider a ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER configured to 2 seconds. +-----------+------------+-------------------+----------------------+ | Network | Time | Router C events | Router E events | | condition | | | | +-----------+------------+-------------------+----------------------+ | S->D | | | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | S->D | t0 | Link B-C fails | Link B-C fails | | Traffic | | | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | | t0+20msec | C detects the | | | | | failure | | | | | | | | S->D | t0+40msec | C activates FRR | | | Traffic | | | | | OK | | | | | | | | | | | t0+50msec | C updates its | | | | | local LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+60msec | C schedules SPF | | | | | (100ms) | | | | | | | | | t0+67msec | C receives | | | | | LSP/LSA from B | | | | | | | | | t0+70msec | C floods its | | | | | local updated | | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | | | LSP/LSA | | | | | | | | | t0+87msec | | E receives LSP/LSA | | | | | from C and schedules | | | | | SPF (100ms) | | | | | | | | t0+117msec | | E floods LSP/LSA | | | | | from C | | | | | | | | t0+160msec | C computes SPF | | | | | | | | | t0+165msec | C delays its | | | | | RIB/FIB update (2 | | | | | sec) | | | | | | | | | t0+193msec | | E computes SPF | | | | | | | | t0+199msec | | E starts updating | | | | | its RIB/FIB | | | | | | | | t0+254msec | Link F-X fails | Link F-X fails | | | | | | | | t0+300msec | C receives | | | | | LSP/LSA from F | | | | | and floods it | | | | | | | | | t0+303msec | C schedules SPF | | | | | (200ms) | | | | | | | | | t0+312msec | E receives | | | | | LSP/LSA from F | | | | | and floods it | | | | | | | | | t0+313msec | E schedules SPF | | | | | (200ms) | | | | | | | | | t0+502msec | C computes SPF | | | | | | | | | t0+505msec | C starts updating | | | | | its RIB/FIB (NO | | | | | DELAY) | | | | | | | | | t0+514msec | | E computes SPF | | | | | | | | t0+519msec | | E starts updating | | | | | its RIB/FIB | | | | | | | S->D | t0+659msec | C updates its | | Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 | Traffic | | RIB/FIB for D | | | lost | | | | | | | | | | S->D | t0+778msec | | E updates its | | Traffic | | | RIB/FIB for D | | OK | | | | | | | | | | | t0+781msec | C convergence | | | | | ends | | | | | | | | | t0+810msec | | E convergence ends | +-----------+------------+-------------------+----------------------+ Route computation event time scale 9. Comparison with other solutions As stated in Section 3, our solution reuses some concepts already introduced by other IETF proposals but tries to find a tradeoff between efficiency and simplicity. This section tries to compare behaviors of the solutions. 9.1. PLSN PLSN ([I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis]) describes a mechanism where each node in the network tries a avoid transient forwarding loops upon a topology change by always keeping traffic on a loop-free path for a defined duration (locked path to a safe neighbor). The locked path may be the new primary nexthop, another neighbor, or the old primary nexthop depending how the safety condition is satisified. PLSN does not solve all transient forwarding loops (see [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis] Section 4 for more details). Our solution reuse some concept of PLSN but in a more simple fashion : o PLSN has 3 different behavior : keep using old nexthop, use new primary nexthop if safe, or use another safe nexthop, while our solution only have one : keep using the current nexthop (old primary, or already activated FRR path). o PLSN may cause some damage while using a safe nexthop which is not the new primary nexthop in case the new safe nexthop does not enough provide enough bandwidth (see [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability]). Our solution may not experience this issue as the service provider may have control on the FRR path being used preventing network congestion. Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 o PLSN applies to all nodes in a network (remote or local changes), while our mechanism applies only on the nodes connected to the topology change. 9.2. OFIB OFIB ([RFC6976]) describes a mechanism where convergence of the network upon a topology change is made ordered to prevent transient forwarding loops. Each router in the network must deduce the failure type from the LSA/LSP received and compute/apply a specific FIB update timer based on the failure type and its rank in the network considering the failure point as root. This mechanism permit to solve all the transient forwarding loop in a network at the price of introducing complexity in the convergence process that may require strong monitoring by the service provider. Our solution reuses the OFIB concept but limits it to the first hop that experience the topology change. As demonstrated, our proposal permits to solve all the local transient forwarding loops that represents a high percentage of all the loops. Moreover limiting the mechanism to one hop permit to keep the network-wide convergence behavior. 10. Existing implementations At this time, there is three different implementations of this mechanism : CISCO IOS-XR, CISCO IOS-XE and Juniper JUNOS. The three implementations have been tested in labs and demonstrated a good behavior in term of local micro-loop avoidance. No side effects have been found. 11. Security Considerations This document does not introduce change in term of IGP security. The operation is internal to the router. The local delay does not increase the attack vector as an attacker could only trigger this mechanism if he already has be ability to disable or enable an IGP link. The local delay does not increase the negative consequences as if an attacker has the ability to disable or enable an IGP link, it can already harm the network by creating instability and harm the traffic by creating forwarding packet loss and forwarding loss for the traffic crossing that link. Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 20] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 12. Acknowledgements We wish to thanks the authors of [RFC6976] for introducing the concept of ordered convergence: Mike Shand, Stewart Bryant, Stefano Previdi, and Olivier Bonaventure. 13. IANA Considerations This document has no actions for IANA. 14. References 14.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC5715] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free Convergence", RFC 5715, DOI 10.17487/RFC5715, January 2010, . 14.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational management of Loop Free Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa- manageability-11 (work in progress), June 2015. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis] Zinin, A., "Analysis and Minimization of Microloops in Link-state Routing Protocols", draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop- analysis-01 (work in progress), October 2005. [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, . [RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Ed., Francois, P., Ed., Shand, M., Decraene, B., Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP) Networks", RFC 6571, DOI 10.17487/RFC6571, June 2012, . Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 21] Internet-Draft uloop-delay April 2016 [RFC6976] Shand, M., Bryant, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Francois, P., and O. Bonaventure, "Framework for Loop-Free Convergence Using the Ordered Forwarding Information Base (oFIB) Approach", RFC 6976, DOI 10.17487/RFC6976, July 2013, . [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, . Authors' Addresses Stephane Litkowski Orange Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Bruno Decraene Orange Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Pierre Francois Cisco Systems Email: pifranco@cisco.com Litkowski, et al. Expires October 7, 2016 [Page 22]