1 / 10

LDP Data Plane Convergence Benchmarking

LDP Data Plane Convergence Benchmarking. Thomas Eriksson, TeliaSonera Scott Poretsky, Quarry Rajiv Papneja, Isocore. Motivation. Service providers need fast convergence for their MPLS VPNs MPLS fast reroute has been the main alternative for fast convergence

sahara
Download Presentation

LDP Data Plane Convergence Benchmarking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LDP Data Plane Convergence Benchmarking Thomas Eriksson, TeliaSonera Scott Poretsky, Quarry Rajiv Papneja, Isocore

  2. Motivation • Service providers need fast convergence for their MPLS VPNs • MPLS fast reroute has been the main alternative for fast convergence • New developments in convergence for LDP (draft-atlas-ip-local-protect-00.txt and draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-00.txt) • ISPs need a standard for LDP data plane convergence benchmarkning IETF 60 San Diego

  3. Goals • Develop a benchmarking terminology and methodology for LDP data plane convergence • Benchmarking to be performed for a number of events (lost LDP session, broken interface, etc.) • Benchmarking metric will be based on measurements done in the data plane • Can be used when comparing different vendor implementations, during an evaluation phase. IETF 60 San Diego

  4. Terminology doc • We have submitted the –01 version of the terminology • Use existing terms for LDP and MPLS when possible • Defined and documented new terms when necessary IETF 60 San Diego

  5. Next Steps • LDP convergence benchmarking to become a work item in BMWG? • Incorporate comments for –01 rev of terminology • Submit first version of the methodology • Discussion…. IETF 60 San Diego

  6. Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence • New terminology • FEC Convergence Event • The occurrence of a planned or unplanned action in the network that results in a change to an LSR's LDP next-hop forwarding • FEC Forwarding Table Convergence • Recovery from a change in the FEC Forwarding Table due to a FEC Convergence Event IETF 60 San Diego

  7. Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence • New terminology • FEC Convergence • A change in the LDP Binding Table due to a FEC Convergence Event • Multiple Next-Hop FEC • A FEC with more than one next-hop and associated outgoing label and interface IETF 60 San Diego

  8. Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence • Existing terminology • BMWG related: Convergence Packet Loss, Rate-Derived Convergence Time, etc. (Mainly from draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-02.txt) • MPLS/LDP related: FEC, LSP, MPLS Edge Node, Upstream LSR, etc. (Mainly from "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031) IETF 60 San Diego

  9. Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence • New terminology • LDP Binding Table • Table in which the LSR maintains all learned labels • FEC Forwarding Table • Table in which the LSR maintains the next hop information for the particular FEC with the associated outgoing label and interface IETF 60 San Diego

  10. Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence • New terminology • Ingress LSR • An MPLS ingress node which is capable of forwarding native L3 packets • Egress LSR • An MPLS Egress node which is capable of forwarding native L3 packets IETF 60 San Diego

More Related