1 / 9

Enhancing Manageability of Loop Free Alternates for Efficient Network Operations

This document discusses the management aspects of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) in network routing. It emphasizes policy-based LFA selection, allowing Service Providers (SPs) to designate preferences based on local constraints. Key improvements include enhanced tie-breaker flexibility, the incorporation of equal-cost multipath (ECMP) scenarios, and refined alternate path attribute retrieval processes. Acknowledging feedback from the working group, this stable draft outlines various use cases for LFA, addresses implementation challenges, and highlights next steps for achieving comprehensive network resilience.

milt
Download Presentation

Enhancing Manageability of Loop Free Alternates for Efficient Network Operations

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. draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-03 S. Litkowski, Orange B. Decraene, Orange K. Raza, Cisco C. Filsfils, Cisco M. Horneffer, DT P. Sarkar, Juniper

  2. Reminder • Goal : Addressing management aspects of Loop Free Alternates • Policy based LFA selection : • Applicable to both LFA & rLFA • Tie-breakers for selecting the LFA are not flexible enough to accommodate for all cases. • Calling for a policy based LFA selection, controlled by the SP according to local constraints • Based on multiple criterions with a default but customized relative order of preference. • Applied per protected interface or set of destinations. • Some operational aspects

  3. Diffsbetween -01 & -03 • Adding ECMP LFA case (loadsharingbetweenLFAs) : D D Pathlist P1 P2 Pathlist, primary if1 if2 M=10 L3 bundle L3 bundle Pathlist, backup FRR S if3 ECMP FRR path if4

  4. Diffsbetween -01 & -03 • Alternatepathattributesretrieval : • connectedalternate => no need of extra computation D S->N attributesretrievedfrom SPT(S) N->D attributesretrievedfrom SPT(N), alreadycomputedby LFA computation E N M=10 S

  5. Diffsbetween -01 & -03 • Alternatepathattributesretrieval : • remotealternate => extra computation required D S->PQ attributesretrievedfrom SPT(S) PQ->D attributesrequires SPT rooted at PQ N E PQ Number of PQ candidates maybevery high !!! A S

  6. Diffsbetween -01 & -03 • Alternatepathattributesretrieval : • remotealternate => prune somePQs ! Link RemoteRemote alternatealternatealternate ------------- ------------------ ------------- Alternates | LFA | | rLFA (PQs) | | Static | sources | | | | | tunnels | ------------- ------------------ ------------- | | | | | | | ---------------------- | | | Prune somePQs | | | | (sortingstrategy) | | | ---------------------- | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------ | Collectalternateattributes | ------------------------------------------------ | | ------------------------- | Evaluatepolicy | ------------------------- | | Best alternates Seedraft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection

  7. Diffsbetween -01 & -03 • Addedsome use cases : • whycoverage information isrequired • Fixing sometext in criteriondetailled info to fit WG comments

  8. Implementations • Threevendorknownimplementations: • Two successfully evaluated in Service Provider lab

  9. Nextsteps ? • Wetookintoaccount all WG comments • Document is stable • Is thereanyother point to takeintoaccount ? • Is theresomeblocking points ? • WGLC ?

More Related