faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 6571 - Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Pr


Or Display the document by number




Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                  C. Filsfils, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6571                                 Cisco Systems
Category: Informational                                 P. Francois, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                 Institute IMDEA Networks
                                                                M. Shand

                                                             B. Decraene
                                                          France Telecom
                                                               J. Uttaro
                                                                    AT&T
                                                              N. Leymann
                                                            M. Horneffer
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                               June 2012

                Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Applicability
                   in Service Provider (SP) Networks

Abstract

   In this document, we analyze the applicability of the Loop-Free
   Alternate (LFA) method of providing IP fast reroute in both the core
   and access parts of Service Provider networks.  We consider both the
   link and node failure cases, and provide guidance on the
   applicability of LFAs to different network topologies, with special
   emphasis on the access parts of the network.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6571.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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. Terminology .....................................................4
   3. Access Network ..................................................6
      3.1. Triangle ...................................................8
           3.1.1. E1C1 Failure ........................................8
           3.1.2. C1E1 Failure ........................................9
           3.1.3. uLoop ...............................................9
           3.1.4. Conclusion .........................................10
      3.2. Full Mesh .................................................10
           3.2.1. E1A1 Failure .......................................10
           3.2.2. A1E1 Failure .......................................11
           3.2.3. A1C1 Failure .......................................11
           3.2.4. C1A1 Failure .......................................12
           3.2.5. uLoop ..............................................12
           3.2.6. Conclusion .........................................12
      3.3. Square ....................................................13
           3.3.1. E1A1 Failure .......................................13
           3.3.2. A1E1 Failure .......................................14
           3.3.3. A1C1 Failure .......................................15
           3.3.4. C1A1 Failure .......................................15
           3.3.5. Conclusion .........................................17
           3.3.6. A Square Might Become a Full Mesh ..................17
           3.3.7. A Full Mesh Might Be More Economical Than a
                  Square .............................................17
      3.4. Extended U ................................................18
           3.4.1. E1A1 Failure .......................................19
           3.4.2. A1E1 Failure .......................................20
           3.4.3. A1C1 Failure .......................................20
           3.4.4. C1A1 Failure .......................................21
           3.4.5. Conclusion .........................................21

      3.5. Dual-Plane Core and Its Impact on the Access LFA
           Analysis ..................................................21
      3.6. Two-Tiered IGP Metric Allocation ..........................22
      3.7. uLoop Analysis ............................................22
      3.8. Summary ...................................................23
   4. Core Network ...................................................24
      4.1. Simulation Framework ......................................25
      4.2. Data Set ..................................................26
      4.3. Simulation Results ........................................26
   5. Core and Access Protection Schemes Are Independent .............27
   6. Simplicity and Other LFA Benefits ..............................27
   7. Capacity Planning with LFA in Mind .............................28
      7.1. Coverage Estimation - Default Topology ....................28
      7.2. Coverage Estimation in Relation to Traffic ................29
      7.3. Coverage Verification for a Given Set of Demands ..........29
      7.4. Modeling - What-If Scenarios - Coverage Impact ............29
      7.5. Modeling - What-If Scenarios - Load Impact ................30
      7.6. Discussion on Metric Recommendations ......................31
   8. Security Considerations ........................................32
   9. Conclusions ....................................................32
   10. Acknowledgments ...............................................32
   11. References ....................................................33
      11.1. Normative References .....................................33
      11.2. Informative References ...................................33

1.  Introduction

   In this document, we analyze the applicability of the Loop-Free
   Alternate (LFA) [RFC5714] [RFC5286] method of providing IP fast
   reroute (IPFRR) in both the core and access parts of Service Provider
   (SP) networks.  We consider both the link and node failure cases, and
   provide guidance on the applicability of LFAs to different network
   topologies, with special emphasis on the access parts of the network.

   We first introduce the terminology used in this document in
   Section 2.  In Section 3, we describe typical access network designs,
   and we analyze them for LFA applicability.  In Section 4, we describe
   a simulation framework for the study of LFA applicability in SP core
   networks, and present results based on various SP networks.  We then
   emphasize the independence between protection schemes used in the
   core and at the access level of the network.  Finally, we discuss the
   key benefits of the LFA method, which stem from its simplicity, and
   we draw some conclusions.

2.  Terminology

   We use IS-IS [RFC1195] [IS-IS] as a reference.  It is assumed that
   normal routing (i.e., when traffic is not being fast-rerouted around
   a failure) occurs along the shortest path.  The analysis is equally
   applicable to OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340].

   A per-prefix LFA for a destination D at a node S is a pre-computed
   backup IGP next hop for that destination.  This backup IGP next hop
   can be link-protecting or node-protecting.  In this document, we
   assume that all links to be protected with LFAs are point-to-point.

   Link-protecting: A neighbor N is a link-protecting per-prefix LFA for
   S's route to D if equation eq1 is satisfied.  This is in line with
   the definition of an LFA in [RFC5714].

                            eq1: ND < NS + SD

              where XY refers to the IGP distance from X to Y

                               Equation eq1

   Node-protecting: A neighbor N is a node-protecting LFA for S's route
   to D with initial IGP next hop F if N is a link-protecting LFA for D
   and equation eq2 is satisfied.  This is in line with the definition
   of a Loop-Free Node-Protecting Alternate (also known as a node-
   protecting LFA) in [RFC5714].

                             eq2: ND < NF + FD

                               Equation eq2

   De facto node-protecting LFA: This is a link-protecting LFA that
   turns out to be node-protecting.  This occurs in cases illustrated by
   the following examples:

   o  The LFA candidate that is picked by S actually satisfies Equation
      eq2, but S did not verify that property.  The show command issued
      by the operator would not indicate this LFA as "node-protecting",
      while in practice (de facto), it is.

   o  A cascading effect of multiple LFAs can also provide de facto node
      protection.  Equation eq2 is not satisfied, but the combined
      activation of LFAs by some other neighbors of the failing node F
      provides (de facto) node protection.  In other words, it puts the
      data plane in a state such that packets forwarded by S ultimately

      reach a neighbor of F that has a node-protecting LFA.  Note that
      in this case, S cannot indicate the node-protecting behavior of
      the repair without running additional computations.

   Per-link LFA: A per-link LFA for the link SF is one pre-computed
   backup IGP next hop for all of the destinations reached through SF.
   This is a neighbor of the repairing node that is a per-prefix LFA for
   all of the destinations that the repairing node reaches through SF.
   Note that such a per-link LFA exists if S has a per-prefix LFA for
   destination F.

                                D
                               / \
                           10 /   \ 10
                             /     \
                            G       H----------.
                            |       |          |
                          1 |     1 |          |
                            |       |          |
                            B       C          | 10
                            |       |\         |
                            |       | \        |
                            |       |  \ 6     |
                            |       |   \      |
                          7 |    10 |    E     F
                            |       |   /     /
                            |       |  / 6   / 5
                            |       | /     /
                            |       |/     /
                            A-------S-----/
                                7

                            Figure 1: Example 1

   In Figure 1, considering the protection of link SC, we can see that
   A, E, and F are per-prefix LFAs for destination D, as none of them
   use S to reach D.

   For destination D, A and F are node-protecting LFAs, as they do not
   reach D through node C, while E is not node-protecting for S, as it
   reaches D through C.

   If S does not compute and select node-protecting LFAs, there is a
   chance that S picks the non-node-protecting LFA E, although A and F
   were node-protecting LFAs.  If S enforces the selection of node-
   protecting LFAs, then in the case of the single failure of link SC,

   S will first activate its LFA, deviate traffic addressed to D along
   S-A-B-G-D and/or S-F-H-D, and then converge to its post-convergence
   optimal path S-E-C-H-D.

   A reaches C via S; thus, A is not a per-link LFA for link SC.  E
   reaches C through link EC; thus, E is a per-link LFA for link SC.
   This per-link LFA does not provide de facto node protection.  Upon
   failure of node C, S would fast-reroute D-destined packets to its
   per-link LFA (= E).  E would itself detect the failure of EC; hence,
   it would activate its own per-link LFA (= S).  Traffic addressed to D
   would be trapped in a loop; hence, there is no de facto node
   protection behavior.

   If there were a link between E and F that E would pick as its LFA for
   destination D, then E would provide de facto node protection for S,
   as upon the activation of its LFA, S would deviate traffic addressed
   to D towards E.  In turn, E deviates that traffic to F, which does
   not reach D through C.

   F is a per-link LFA for link SC, as F reaches C via H.  This per-link
   LFA is de facto node-protecting for destination D, as F reaches D via
   F-H-D.

   Micro-Loop (uLoop): the occurrence of a transient forwarding loop
   during a routing transition (as defined in [RFC5715]).

   In Figure 1, the loss of link SE cannot create any uLoop, because of
   the following:

   1.  The link is only used to reach destination E.

   2.  S is the sole node changing its path to E upon link SE failure.

   3.  S's shortest path to E after the failure goes via C.

   4.  C's best path to E (before and after link SC failure) is via CE.

   On the other hand, upon failure of link AB, a micro-loop may form for
   traffic destined to B.  Indeed, if A updates its Forwarding
   Information Base (FIB) before S, A will reroute B-destined traffic
   towards S, while S is still forwarding this traffic to A.

3.  Access Network

   The access part of the network often represents the majority of the
   nodes and links.  It is organized in several tens or more of regions
   interconnected by the core network.  Very often, the core acts as an
   IS-IS level-2 domain (OSPF area 0), while each access region is

   confined in an IS-IS level-1 domain (OSPF non-0 area).  Very often,
   the network topology within each access region is derived from a
   unique template common across the whole access network.  Within an
   access region itself, the network is made of several aggregation
   regions, each following the same interconnection topologies.

   For these reasons, in the next sections, we base the analysis of the
   LFA applicability in a single access region, with the following
   assumptions:

   o  Two routers (C1 and C2) provide connectivity between the access
      region and the rest of the network.  If a link connects these two
      routers in the region area, then it has a symmetric IGP metric c.

   o  We analyze a single aggregation region within the access region.
      Two aggregation routers (A1 and A2) interconnect the aggregation
      region to the two routers C1 and C2 for the analyzed access
      region.  If a link connects A1 to A2, then it has a symmetric IGP
      metric a.  If a link connects a router A to a router C, then for
      the sake of generality we will call d the metric for the directed
      link CA and u the metric for the directed link AC.

   o  We analyze two edge routers, E1 and E2, in the access region.
      Each is dual-homed directly either to C1 and C2 (Section 3.1) or
      to A1 and A2 (Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4).  The directed link
      metric between Cx/Ax and Ey is d and u in the opposite direction.

   o  We assume a multi-level IGP domain.  The analyzed access region
      forms a level-1 (L1) domain.  The core is the level-2 (L2) domain.
      We assume that the link between C1 and C2, if it exists, is
      configured as L1L2.  We assume that the loopbacks of the C routers
      are part of the L2 topology.  L1 routers learn about them as
      propagated routes (L2=>L1 with the Down bit set).  We remind the
      reader that if an L1L2 router learns about X/x as an L1 path P1,
      an L2 path P2, and an L1L2 path P12, then it will prefer path P1.
      If path P1 is lost, then it will prefer path P2.

   o  We assume that all of the C, A, and E routers may be connected to
      customers; hence, we analyze LFA coverage for the loopbacks of
      each type of node.

   o  We assume that no useful traffic is directed to router-to-router
      subnets; hence, we do not analyze LFA applicability for such
      subnets.

   o  A prefix P models an important IGP destination that is not present
      in the local access region.  The IGP metric from C1 to P is x, and
      the metric from C2 to P is x + e.

   o  We analyze LFA coverage against all link and node failures within
      the access region.

   o  WxYz refers to the link from Wx to Yz.

   o  We assume that c < d + u and a < d + u (a commonly agreed-upon
      design rule).

   o  In the square access design (Section 3.3), we assume that c < a (a
      commonly agreed-upon design rule).

   o  We analyze the most frequent topologies found in an access region.

   o  We first analyze per-prefix LFA applicability and then per-link.

   o  The topologies are symmetric with respect to a vertical axis;
      hence, we only detail the logic for the link and node failures of
      the left half of the topology.

3.1.  Triangle

   We describe the LFA applicability for the failures of C1E1, E1, and
   C1 (Figure 2).

                                     P
                                    / \
                                  x/   \x+e
                                  /     \
                                 C1--c--C2
                                  |\   /|
                                  | \ / |
                               d/u|  \  |d/u
                                  | / \ |
                                  |/   \|
                                 E1     E2

                            Figure 2: Triangle

3.1.1.  E1C1 Failure

3.1.1.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Three destinations are impacted by this link failure: C1, E2, and P.

   The LFA for destination C1 is C2, because eq1: c < d + u.  Node
   protection for route C1 is not applicable.  (If C1 goes down, traffic
   destined to C1 is lost anyway.)

   The LFA to E2 is via C2, because eq1: d < d + u + d.  It is node-
   protecting, because eq2: d < c + d.

   The LFA to P is via C2, because c < d + u.  It is node-protecting if
   eq2: x + e < x + c, i.e., if e < c.  This relationship between e and
   c is an important aspect of the analysis, which is discussed in
   detail in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.

   Conclusion: All important intra-PoP (Point of Presence) routes with
   primary interface E1C1 benefit from LFA link and node protection.
   All important inter-PoP routes with primary interface E1C1 benefit
   from LFA link protection, and also from node protection if e < c.

3.1.1.2.  Per-Link LFA

   We have a per-prefix LFA to C1; hence, we have a per-link LFA for
   link E1C1.  All impacted destinations are protected against link
   failure.  In the case of C1 node failure, the traffic to C1 is lost
   (by definition), the traffic to E2 is de facto protected against node
   failure, and the traffic to P is de facto protected when e < c.

3.1.2.  C1E1 Failure

3.1.2.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   C1 only has one primary route via C1E1: the route to E1
   (because c < d + u).

   C1's LFA to E1 is via C2, because eq1: d < c + d.

   Node protection upon E1's failure is not applicable, as the only
   impacted traffic is sinked at E1 and hence is lost anyway.

   Conclusion: All important routes with primary interface C1E1 benefit
   from LFA link protection.  Node protection is not applicable.

3.1.2.2.  Per-Link LFA

   We have a per-prefix LFA to E1; hence, we have a per-link LFA for
   link C1E1.  De facto node protection is not applicable.

3.1.3.  uLoop

   The IGP convergence cannot create any uLoop.  See Section 3.7.

3.1.4.  Conclusion

   All important intra-PoP routes benefit from LFA link and node
   protection or de facto node protection.  All important inter-PoP
   routes benefit from LFA link protection.  De facto node protection is
   ensured if e < c.  (This is particularly the case for dual-plane core
   or two-tiered IGP metric design; see Sections 3.5 and 3.6.)

   The IGP convergence does not cause any uLoop.

   Per-link LFAs and per-prefix LFAs provide the same protection
   benefits.

3.2.  Full Mesh

   We describe the LFA applicability for the failures of C1A1, A1E1, E1,
   A1, and C1 (Figure 3).

                                     P
                                    / \
                                  x/   \x+e
                                  /     \
                                 C1--c--C2
                                  |\   /|
                                  | \ / |
                              d/u |  \  | d/u
                                  | / \ |
                                  |/   \|
                                 A1--a--A2
                                  |\   /|
                                  | \ / |
                               d/u|  \  |d/u
                                  | / \ |
                                  |/   \|
                                 E1     E2

                            Figure 3: Full Mesh

3.2.1.  E1A1 Failure

3.2.1.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Four destinations are impacted by this link failure: A1, C1, E2,
   and P.

   The LFA for A1 is A2: eq1: a < d + u.  Node protection for route A1
   is not applicable.  (If A1 goes down, traffic to A1 is lost anyway.)

   The LFA for C1 is A2: eq1: u < d + u + u.  Node protection for route
   C1 is guaranteed: eq2: u < a + u.

   The LFA to E2 is via A2: eq1: d < d + u + d.  Node protection is
   guaranteed: eq2: d < a + d.

   The LFA to P is via A2: eq1: u + x < d + u + u + x.  Node protection
   is guaranteed: eq2: u + x < a + u + x.

   Conclusion: All important intra-PoP and inter-PoP routes with primary
   interface E1A1 benefit from LFA link and node protection.

3.2.1.2.  Per-Link LFA

   We have a per-prefix LFA to A1; hence, we have a per-link LFA for
   link E1A1.  All impacted destinations are protected against link
   failure.  De facto node protection is provided for all destinations
   (except to A1, which is not applicable).

3.2.2.  A1E1 Failure

3.2.2.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   A1 only has one primary route via A1E1: the route to E1
   (because a < d + u).

   A1's LFA to E1 is via A2: eq1: d < a + d.

   Node protection upon E1's failure is not applicable, as the only
   impacted traffic is sinked at E1 and hence is lost anyway.

   Conclusion: All important routes with primary interface A1E1 benefit
   from LFA link protection.  Node protection is not applicable.

3.2.2.2.  Per-Link LFA

   We have a per-prefix LFA to E1; hence, we have a per-link LFA for
   link C1E1.  De facto node protection is not applicable.

3.2.3.  A1C1 Failure

3.2.3.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Two destinations are impacted by this link failure: C1 and P.

   The LFA for C1 is C2, because eq1: c < d + u.  Node protection for
   route C1 is not applicable.  (If C1 goes down, traffic to C1 is lost
   anyway.)

   The LFA for P is via C2, because c < d + u.  It is de facto protected
   against node failure if eq2: x + e < x + c.

   Conclusion: All important intra-PoP routes with primary interface
   A1C1 benefit from LFA link protection.  (Node protection is not
   applicable.)  All important inter-PoP routes with primary interface
   E1C1 benefit from LFA link protection (and from de facto node
   protection if e < c).

3.2.3.2.  Per-Link LFA

   We have a per-prefix LFA to C1; hence, we have a per-link LFA for
   link A1C1.  All impacted destinations are protected against link
   failure.  In the case of C1 node failure, the traffic to C1 is lost
   (by definition), and the traffic to P is de facto node protected
   if e < c.

3.2.4.  C1A1 Failure

3.2.4.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   C1 has three routes via C1A1: A1, E1, and E2.  E2 behaves like E1 and
   hence is not analyzed further.

   C1's LFA to A1 is via C2, because eq1: d < c + d.  Node protection
   upon A1's failure is not applicable, as the traffic to A1 is lost
   anyway.

   C1's LFA to E1 is via A2: eq1: d < u + d + d.  Node protection upon
   A1's failure is guaranteed, because eq2: d < a + d.

   Conclusion: All important routes with primary interface C1A1 benefit
   from LFA link protection.  Node protection is guaranteed where
   applicable.

3.2.4.2.  Per-Link LFA

   We have a per-prefix LFA to A1; hence, we have a per-link LFA for
   link C1E1.  De facto node protection is available.

3.2.5.  uLoop

   The IGP convergence cannot create any uLoop.  See Section 3.7.

3.2.6.  Conclusion

   All important intra-PoP routes benefit from LFA link and node
   protection.

   All important inter-PoP routes benefit from LFA link protection.
   They benefit from node protection upon failure of A nodes.  They
   benefit from node protections upon failure of C nodes if e < c.
   (This is particularly the case for dual-plane core or two-tiered IGP
   metric design; see Sections 3.5 and 3.6.)

   The IGP convergence does not cause any uLoop.

   Per-link LFAs and per-prefix LFAs provide the same protection
   benefits.

3.3.  Square

   We describe the LFA applicability for the failures of C1A1, A1E1, E1,
   A1, and C1 (Figure 4).

                                 P
                                / \
                              x/   \x+e
                              /     \
                             C1--c--C2
                              |\    | \
                              | \   |  +-------+
                          d/u |  \  |           \
                              |   +-|-----+      \
                              |     |      \      \
                             A1--a--A2     A3--a--A4
                              |\   /|       |    /
                              | \ / |       |   /
                           d/u|  \  |d/u    |  /
                              | / \ |       | /
                              |/   \|       |/
                             E1     E2      E3

                             Figure 4: Square

3.3.1.  E1A1 Failure

3.3.1.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   E1 has six routes via E1A1: A1, C1, P, E2, A3, and E3.

   E1's LFA route to A1 is via A2, because eq1: a < d + u.  Node
   protection for traffic to A1 upon A1 node failure is not applicable.

   E1's LFA route to A3 is via A2, because eq1: u + c + d < d + u +
   u + d.  This LFA is guaranteed to be node-protecting, because
   eq2: u + c + d < a + u + d.

   E1's LFA route to C1 is via A2, because eq1: u + c < d + u + u.  This
   LFA is guaranteed to be node-protecting, because eq2: u + c < a + u.

   E1's primary route to E2 is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2) (Equal-Cost
   Multi-Path).  The LFA for the first ECMP path (via A1) is the second
   ECMP path (via A2).  This LFA is guaranteed to be node-protecting,
   because eq2: d < a + d.

   E1's primary route to E3 is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2).  The LFA for the
   first ECMP path (via A1) is the second ECMP path (via A2).  This LFA
   is guaranteed to be node-protecting, because eq2: u + d + d < a + u +
   d + d.

   If e = 0: E1's primary route to P is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2).  The LFA
   for the first ECMP path (via A1) is the second ECMP path (via A2).
   This LFA is guaranteed to be node-protecting, because eq2: u + x + 0
   < a + u + x.

   If e <> 0: E1's primary route to P is via E1A1.  Its LFA is via A2,
   because eq1: u + c + x < d + u + u + x.  This LFA is guaranteed to be
   node-protecting, because eq2: u + c + x < a + u + x.

   Conclusion: All important intra-PoP and inter-PoP routes with primary
   interface E1A1 benefit from LFA link protection and node protection.

3.3.1.2.  Per-Link LFA

   We have a per-prefix LFA for A1; hence, we have a per-link LFA for
   link E1A1.  All important intra-PoP and inter-PoP routes with primary
   interface E1A1 benefit from LFA per-link protection and de facto node
   protection.

3.3.2.  A1E1 Failure

3.3.2.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   A1 only has one primary route via A1E1: the route to E1.

   A1's LFA for route E1 is the path via A2, because eq1: d < a + d.
   Node protection is not applicable.

   Conclusion: All important routes with primary interface A1E1 benefit
   from LFA link protection.  Node protection is not applicable.

3.3.2.2.  Per-Link LFA

   All important routes with primary interface A1E1 benefit from LFA
   link protection.  De facto node protection is not applicable.

3.3.3.  A1C1 Failure

3.3.3.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Four destinations are impacted when A1C1 fails: C1, A3, E3, and P.

   A1's LFA to C1 is via A2, because eq1: u + c < a + u.  Node
   protection is not applicable for traffic to C1 when C1 fails.

   A1's LFA to A3 is via A2, because eq1: u + c + d < a + u + d.  It is
   de facto node-protecting, as a < u + c + d (as we assumed
   a < u + d).  Indeed, for destination A3, A2 forwards traffic to C2,
   and C2 has a node-protecting LFA -- A4 -- for the failure of link
   C2C1, as a < u + c + d.  Hence, the cascading application of LFAs by
   A1 and C2 during the failure of C1 provides de facto node protection.

   A1's LFA to E3 is via A2, because eq1: u + d + d < a + u + d + d.  It
   is node-protecting, because eq2: u + d + d < u + c + d + d.

   A1's primary route to P is via C1 (even if e = 0, u + x < u + c + x).
   The LFA is via A2, because eq1: u + c + x < a + u + x (case where
   c <= e) and eq1: u + x + e < a + u + x (case where c >= e).  This LFA
   is node-protecting (from the viewpoint of A1 computing eq2) if
   eq2: u + x + e < u + c + x.  This inequality is true if e < c.

   Conclusion: All important intra-PoP routes with primary interface
   A1C1 benefit from LFA link protection and node protection.  Note that
   A3 benefits from de facto node protection.  All important inter-PoP
   routes with primary interface A1C1 benefit from LFA link protection.
   They also benefit from node protection if e < c.

3.3.3.2.  Per-Link LFA

   All important intra-PoP routes with primary interface A1C1 benefit
   from LFA link protection and de facto node protection.  All important
   inter-PoP routes with primary interface A1C1 benefit from LFA link
   protection.  They also benefit from de facto node protection if
   e < c.

3.3.4.  C1A1 Failure

3.3.4.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Three destinations are impacted by C1A1 link failure: A1, E1, and E2.
   E2's analysis is the same as E1 and hence is omitted.

   C1 has no LFA for A1.  Indeed, its neighbors (C2 and A3) have a
   shortest path to A1 via C1.  This is due to the assumption (c < a).

   C1's LFA for E1 is via C2, because eq1: d + d < c + d + d.  It
   provides node protection, because eq2: d + d < d + a + d.

   Conclusion: All important intra-PoP routes with primary interface
   A1C1, except A1, benefit from LFA link protection and node
   protection.

3.3.4.2.  Per-Link LFA

   C1 does not have a per-prefix LFA for destination A1; hence, there is
   no per-link LFA for link C1A1.

3.3.4.3.  Assumptions on the Values of c and a

   The commonly agreed-upon design rule (c < a) is especially beneficial
   for a deployment using per-link LFA: it provides a per-link LFA for
   the most important direction (A1C1).  Indeed, there are many more
   destinations reachable over A1C1 than over C1A1.  As the IGP
   convergence duration is proportional to the number of routes to
   update, there is a better benefit in leveraging LFA FRR for link A1C1
   than for link C1A1.

   Note as well that the consequence of this assumption is much more
   important for per-link LFA than for per-prefix LFA.

   For per-prefix LFAs, in the case of link C1A1 failure, we do have a
   per-prefix LFA for E1, E2, and any node subtended below A1 and A2.
   Typically, most of the traffic traversing link C1A1 is directed to
   these E nodes; hence, the lack of per-prefix LFAs for the destination
   A1 might be insignificant.  This is a good example of the coverage
   benefit of per-prefix LFAs over per-link LFAs.

   In the remainder of this section, we analyze the consequence of not
   having c < a.

   It definitely has a negative impact upon per-link LFAs.

   With c > a, C1A1 has a per-link LFA, while A1C1 has no per-link LFA.
   The number of destinations impacted by A1C1 failure is much larger
   than the direction C1A1; hence, the protection is provided for the
   wrong direction.

   For per-prefix LFAs, the availability of an LFA depends on the
   topology and needs to be assessed individually for each per-prefix
   LFA.  Some backbone topologies will lead to very good protection
   coverage, while some others might provide very poor coverage.

   More specifically, upon A1C1 failure, the coverage of a remote
   destination P depends on whether e < a.  In such a case, A2 is de
   facto node-protecting per-prefix LFA for P.

   Such a study likely requires a planning tool, as each remote
   destination P would have a different e value (exception: all of the
   edge devices of other aggregation pairs within the same region, as
   for these e = 0 by definition, e.g., E3.)

   Finally, note that c = a is the worst choice.  In this case, C1 has
   no per-prefix LFA for A1 (and vice versa); hence, there is no
   per-link LFA for C1A1 and A1C1.

3.3.5.  Conclusion

   All important intra-PoP routes benefit from LFA link and node
   protection with one exception: C1 has no per-prefix LFA to A1.

   All important inter-PoP routes benefit from LFA link protection.
   They benefit from node protection if e < c.

   Per-link LFA provides the same protection coverage as per-prefix LFA,
   with two exceptions: first, C1A1 has no per-link LFA at all.  Second,
   when per-prefix LFA provides node protection (eq2 is satisfied),
   per-link LFA provides effective de facto node protection.

3.3.6.  A Square Might Become a Full Mesh

   If the vertical links of the square are made of parallel links (at
   the IP topology or below), then one should consider splitting these
   "vertical links" into "vertical and crossed links".  The topology
   becomes "full mesh".  One should also ensure that the two resulting
   sets of links (vertical and crossed) do not share any Shared Risk
   Link Group (SRLG).

   A typical scenario in which this is prevented would be when the A1C1
   bandwidth may be within a building while the A1C2 is between
   buildings.  Hence, while from a router-port viewpoint the operation
   is cost-neutral, from a cost-of-bandwidth viewpoint it is not.

3.3.7.  A Full Mesh Might Be More Economical Than a Square

   In a full mesh, the vertical and crossed links play the dominant
   role, as they support most of the primary and backup paths.  The
   capacity of the horizontal links can be dimensioned on the basis of
   traffic destined to a single C node or a single A node, and to a
   single E node.

3.4.  Extended U

   For the Extended U topology, we define the following terminology:

      C1L1: the node "C1" as seen in topology L1.

      C1L2: the node "C1" as seen in topology L2.

      C1LO: the loopback of C1.  This loopback is in L2.

      C2LO: the loopback of C2.  This loopback is in L2.

   We remind the reader that C1 and C2 are L1L2 routers and that their
   loopbacks are in L2 only.

                                  P
                                 / \
                               x/   \x+e
                               /     \
                              C1<...>C2
                               |\    | \
                               | \   |  +-------+
                           d/u |  \  |           \
                               |   +-|-----+      \
                               |     |      \      \
                              A1--a--A2     A3--a--A4
                               |\   /|       |    /
                               | \ / |       |   /
                            d/u|  \  |d/u    |  /
                               | / \ |       | /
                               |/   \|       |/
                              E1     E2      E3

                           Figure 5: Extended U

   There is no L1 link between C1 and C2.  There might be an L2 link
   between C1 and C2.  This is not relevant, as this is not seen from
   the viewpoint of the L1 topology, which is the focus of our analysis.

   It is guaranteed that there is a path from C1LO to C2LO within the L2
   topology (except if the L2 topology partitions, which is very
   unlikely and hence not analyzed here).  We call "c" its path cost.
   Once again, we assume that c < a.

   We exploit this property to create a tunnel T between C1LO and C2LO.
   Once again, as the source and destination addresses are the loopbacks
   of C1 and C2 and these loopbacks are in L2 only, it is guaranteed
   that the tunnel does not transit via the L1 domain.

   IS-IS does not run over the tunnel; hence, the tunnel is not used for
   any primary paths within the L1 or L2 topology.

   Within level-1, we configure C1 (C2) with a level-1 LFA extended
   neighbor "C2 via tunnel T" ("C1 via tunnel T").

   A router supporting such an extension learns that it has one
   additional potential neighbor in topology level-1 when checking for
   LFAs.

   The L1 topology learns about C1LO as an L2=>L1 route with the Down
   bit set, propagated by C1L1 and C2L1.  The metric advertised by C2L1
   is bigger than the metric advertised by C1L1 by "c".

   The L1 topology learns about P as an L2=>L1 route with the Down bit
   set, propagated by C1L1 and C2L1.  The metric advertised by C2L1 is
   bigger than the metric advertised by C1L1 by "e".  This implies that
   e <= c.

3.4.1.  E1A1 Failure

3.4.1.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Five destinations are impacted by E1A1 link failure: A1, C1LO, E2,
   E3, and P.

   The LFA for A1 is via A2, because eq1: a < d + u.  Node protection
   for traffic to A1 upon A1 node failure is not applicable.

   The LFA for E2 is via A2, because eq1: d < d + u + d.  Node
   protection is guaranteed, because eq2: d < a + d.

   The LFA for E3 is via A2, because eq1: u + d + d < d + u + d + d.
   Node protection is guaranteed, because eq2: u + d + d
   < a + u + d + d.

   The LFA for C1LO is via A2, because eq1: u + c < d + u + u.  Node
   protection is guaranteed, because eq2: u + c < a + u.

   If e = 0: E1's primary route to P is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2).  The LFA
   for the first ECMP path (via A1) is the second ECMP path (via A2).
   Node protection is possible, because eq2: u + x < a + u + x.

   If e <> 0: E1's primary route to P is via E1A1.  Its LFA is via A2,
   because eq1: a + c + x < d + u + u + x.  Node protection is
   guaranteed, because eq2: u + x + e < a + u + x <=> e < a.  This is
   true, because e <= c and c < a.

   Conclusion: Same as that for the square topology.

3.4.1.2.  Per-Link LFA

   Same as the square topology.

3.4.2.  A1E1 Failure

3.4.2.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Same as the square topology.

3.4.2.2.  Per-Link LFA

   Same as the square topology.

3.4.3.  A1C1 Failure

3.4.3.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Three destinations are impacted when A1C1 fails: C1, E3, and P.

   A1's LFA to C1LO is via A2, because eq1: u + c < a + u.  Node
   protection is not applicable for traffic to C1 when C1 fails.

   A1's LFA to E3 is via A2, because eq1: u + d + d < d + u + u + d + d.
   Node protection is guaranteed, because eq2: u + d + d < a + u +
   d + d.

   A1's primary route to P is via C1 (even if e = 0, u + x < a + u + x).
   The LFA is via A2, because eq1: u + x + e < a + u + x <=> e < a
   (which is true; see above).  Node protection is guaranteed, because
   eq2: u + x + e < a + u + x.

   Conclusion: Same as that for the square topology.

3.4.3.2.  Per-Link LFA

   Same as the square topology.

3.4.4.  C1A1 Failure

3.4.4.1.  Per-Prefix LFA

   Three destinations are impacted by C1A1 link failure: A1, E1, and E2.
   E2's analysis is the same as E1 and hence is omitted.

   C1L1 has an LFA for A1 via the extended neighbor C2L1 reachable via
   tunnel T.  Indeed, eq1 is true: d + a < d + a + u + d.  From the
   viewpoint of C1L1, C2L1's path to C1L1 is C2L1-A2-A1-C1L1.  Remember
   that the tunnel is not seen by IS-IS for computing primary paths!
   Node protection is not applicable for traffic to A1 when A1 fails.

   C1L1's LFA for E1 is via extended neighbor C2L1 (over tunnel T),
   because eq1: d + d < d + a + u + d + d.  Node protection is
   guaranteed, because eq2: d + d < d + a + d.

3.4.4.2.  Per-Link LFA

   C1 has a per-prefix LFA for destination A1; hence, there is a
   per-link LFA for the link C1A1.  Node resistance is applicable for
   traffic to E1 (and E2).

3.4.5.  Conclusion

   The Extended U topology is as good as the square topology.

   It does not require any crossed links between the A and C nodes
   within an aggregation region.  It does not need an L1 link between
   the C routers in an access region.  Note that a link between the C
   routers might exist in the L2 topology.

3.5.  Dual-Plane Core and Its Impact on the Access LFA Analysis

   A dual-plane core is defined as follows:

   o  Each access region k is connected to the core by two C routers
      (C(1,k) and C(2,k)).

   o  C(1,k) is part of plane-1 of the dual-plane core.

   o  C(2,k) is part of plane-2 of the dual-plane core.

   o  C(1,k) has a link to C(2, l) iff k = l.

   o  {C(1,k) has a link to C(1, l)} iff {C(2,k) has a link to C(2, l)}.

   In a dual-plane core design, e = 0; hence, the LFA node-protection
   coverage is improved in all of the analyzed topologies.

3.6.  Two-Tiered IGP Metric Allocation

   A two-tiered IGP metric allocation scheme is defined as follows:

   o  All of the link metrics used in the L2 domain are part of
      range R1.

   o  All of the link metrics used in an L1 domain are part of range R2.

   o  Range R1 << range R2 such that the difference e = C2P - C1P is
      smaller than any link metric within an access region.

   Assuming such an IGP metric allocation, the following properties are
   guaranteed: c < a, e < c, and e < a.

3.7.  uLoop Analysis

   In this section, we analyze a case where the routing transition
   following the failure of a link may have some uLoop potential for one
   destination.  Then, we show that all of the other cases do not have
   uLoop potential.

   In the square design, upon the failure of link C1A1, traffic
   addressed to A1 can undergo a transient forwarding loop as C1
   reroutes traffic to C2, which initially reaches A1 through C1, as
   c < a.  This loop will actually occur when C1 updates its FIB for
   destination A1 before C2.

   It can be shown that all of the other routing transitions following a
   link failure in the analyzed topologies do not have uLoop potential.
   Indeed, in each case, for all destinations affected by the failure,
   the rerouting nodes deviate their traffic directly to adjacent nodes
   whose paths towards these destinations do not change.  As a
   consequence, all of these routing transitions cannot undergo
   transient forwarding loops.

   For example, in the square topology, the failure of directed link
   A1C1 does not lead to any uLoop.  The destinations reached over that
   directed link are C1 and P.  A1's and E1's shortest paths to these
   destinations after the convergence go via A2.  A2's path to C1 and P
   is not using A1C1 before the failure; hence, no uLoop may occur.

3.8.  Summary

   In this section, we summarize the applicability of LFAs detailed in
   the previous sections.  For link protection, we use "Full" to refer
   to the applicability of LFAs for each destination, reached via any
   link of the topology.  For node protection, we use "Yes" to refer to
   the fact that node protection is achieved for a given node.

   1.  Intra-Area Destinations

          Link Protection

          +  Triangle: Full
          +  Full Mesh: Full
          +  Square: Full, except C1 has no LFA for dest A1
          +  Extended U: Full

          Node Protection

          +  Triangle: Yes

          +  Full Mesh: Yes
          +  Square: Yes
          +  Extended U: Yes

   2.  Inter-Area Destinations

          Link Protection

          +  Triangle: Full
          +  Full Mesh: Full
          +  Square: Full
          +  Extended U: Full

          Node Protection

          +  Triangle: Yes, if e < c
          +  Full Mesh: Yes for A failure, if e < c for C failure
          +  Square: Yes for A failure, if e < c for C failure
          +  Extended U: Yes, if e <= c and c < a

   3.  uLoops

       *  Triangle: None
       *  Full Mesh: None
       *  Square: None, except traffic to A1 when C1A1 fails
       *  Extended U: None, if a > e

   4.  Per-Link LFA vs. Per-Prefix LFA

       *  Triangle: Same
       *  Full Mesh: Same
       *  Square: Same, except C1A1 has no per-link LFA.  In practice,
          this means that per-prefix LFAs will be used.  (Hence, C1 has
          no LFA for dest = E1 and dest = A1.)
       *  Extended U: Same

4.  Core Network

   In the backbone, the optimization of the network design to achieve
   the maximum LFA protection is less straightforward than in the case
   of the access/aggregation network.

   The main optimization objectives for backbone topology design are
   cost, latency, and bandwidth, constrained by the availability of
   fiber.  Optimizing the design for local IP restoration is more likely
   to be considered as a non-primary objective.  For example, the way
   the fiber is laid out and the resulting cost to change it lead to
   ring topologies in some backbone networks.

   Also, the capacity-planning process is already complex in the
   backbone.  The process needs to make sure that the traffic matrix
   (demand) is supported by the underlying network (capacity) under all
   possible variations of the underlying network (what-if scenario
   related to one-SRLG failure).  Classically, "supported" means that no
   congestion is experienced and that the demands are routed along the
   appropriate latency paths.  Selecting the LFA method as a
   deterministic FRR solution for the backbone would require enhancement
   of the capacity-planning process to add a third constraint: Each
   variation of the underlying network should lead to sufficient LFA
   coverage.  (We detail this aspect in Section 7.)

   On the other hand, the access network is based on many replications
   of a small number of well-known (well-engineered) topologies.  The
   LFA coverage is deterministic and is independent of additions/
   insertions of a new edge device, a new aggregation sub-region, or a
   new access region.

   In practice, we believe that there are three profiles for the
   backbone applicability of the LFA method:

      In the first profile, the designer plans all of the network
      resilience on IGP convergence.  In such a case, the LFA method is
      a free bonus.  If an LFA is available, then the loss of
      connectivity is likely reduced by a factor of 10 (50 msec vs.
      500 msec); otherwise, the loss of connectivity depends on IGP

      convergence, which is the initial target anyway.  The LFA method
      should be very successful here, as it provides a significant
      improvement without any additional cost.

      In the second profile, the designer seeks a very high and
      deterministic FRR coverage, and he either does not want or cannot
      engineer the topology.  The LFA method should not be considered in
      this case.  MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) FRR would perform much
      better in this environment.  Explicit routing ensures that a
      backup path exists, whatever the underlying topology.

      In the third profile, the designer seeks a very high and
      deterministic FRR coverage, and he does engineer the topology.
      The LFA method is appealing in this scenario, as it can provide a
      very simple way to obtain protection.  Furthermore, in practice,
      the requirement for FRR coverage might be limited to a certain
      part of the network (e.g., a given sub-topology) and/or is likely
      limited to a subset of the demands within the traffic matrix.  In
      such a case, if the relevant part of the network natively provides
      a high degree of LFA protection for demands of interest, it might
      actually be straightforward to improve the topology and achieve
      the level of protection required for the sub-topology and the
      demands that matter.  Once again, the practical problem needs to
      be considered (which sub-topology, and which real demands need
      50 msec), as it is often simpler than the theoretical generic one.

   For the reasons explained previously, the backbone applicability
   should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and it is difficult to
   derive generic rules.

   In order to help the reader to assess the LFA applicability in his
   own case, we provide some simulation results based on 11 real
   backbone topologies in the next section.

4.1.  Simulation Framework

   In order to perform an analysis of LFA applicability in the core, we
   usually receive the complete IS-IS/OSPF linkstate database taken on a
   core router.  We parse it to obtain the topology.  During this
   process, we eliminate all nodes connected to the topology with a
   single link and all prefixes except a single "node address" per
   router.  We compute the availability of per-prefix LFAs to all of
   these node addresses, which we hereafter call "destinations".  We
   treat each link in each direction.

   For each (directed) link, we compute whether we have a per-prefix LFA
   to the next hop.  If so, we have a per-link LFA for the link.

   The per-link-LFA coverage for a topology T is the fraction of the
   number of links with a per-link LFA divided by the total number of
   links.

   For each link, we compute the number of destinations whose primary
   path involves the analyzed link.  For each such destination, we
   compute whether a per-prefix LFA exists.

   The per-prefix LFA coverage for a topology T is the following
   fraction:

   (the sum across all links of the number of destinations with a
   primary path over the link and a per-prefix LFA)

   divided by

   (the sum across all links of the number of destinations with a
   primary path over the link)

4.2.  Data Set

   Our data set is based on 11 SP core topologies with different
   geographical scopes: worldwide, national, and regional.  The number
   of nodes ranges from 600 to 16.  The average link-to-node ratio is
   2.3, with a minimum of 1.2 and maximum of 6.

4.3.  Simulation Results

               +----------+--------------+----------------+
               | Topology | Per-Link LFA | Per-Prefix LFA |
               +----------+--------------+----------------+
               |    T1    |      45%     |       76%      |
               |    T2    |      49%     |       98%      |
               |    T3    |      88%     |       99%      |
               |    T4    |      68%     |       84%      |
               |    T5    |      75%     |       94%      |
               |    T6    |      87%     |       98%      |
               |    T7    |      16%     |       67%      |
               |    T8    |      87%     |       99%      |
               |    T9    |      67%     |       79%      |
               |    T10   |      98%     |       99%      |
               |    T11   |      59%     |       77%      |
               |  Average |      67%     |       89%      |
               |  Median  |      68%     |       94%      |
               +----------+--------------+----------------+

                        Table 1: Core LFA Coverages

   In Table 1, we observe a wide variation in terms of LFA coverage
   across topologies: from 67% to 99% for the per-prefix LFA coverage,
   and from 16% to 98% for the per-link LFA coverage.  Several
   topologies have been optimized for LFAs (T3, 6, 8, and 10).  This
   illustrates the need for case-by-case analysis when considering LFAs
   for core networks.

   It should be noted that, contrary to the access/aggregation
   topologies, per-prefix LFA outperforms per-link LFA in the backbone.

5.  Core and Access Protection Schemes Are Independent

   Specifically, a design might use LFA FRR in the access and MPLS TE
   FRR in the core.

   The LFA method provides great benefits for the access network, due to
   its excellent access coverage and its simplicity.

   MPLS TE FRR's topology independence might prove beneficial in the
   core when the LFA FRR coverage is judged too small and/or the
   designer feels unable to optimize the topology to improve the LFA
   coverage.

6.  Simplicity and Other LFA Benefits

   The LFA solution provides significant benefits that mainly stem from
   its simplicity.

   Behavior of LFAs is an automated process that makes fast restoration
   an intrinsic part of the IGP, with no additional configuration burden
   in the IGP or any other protocol.

   Thanks to this integration, the use of multiple areas in the IGP does
   not make fast restoration more complex to achieve than in a single
   area IGP design.

   There is no requirement for network-wide upgrade, as LFAs do not
   require any protocol change and hence can be deployed router by
   router.

   With LFAs, the backup paths are pre-computed and installed in the
   data plane in advance of the failure.  Assuming a fast enough FIB
   update time compared to the total number of (important) destinations,
   a "<50-msec repair" requirement becomes achievable.  With a prefix-
   independent implementation, LFAs have a fixed repair time, as the
   repair time depends on the failure detection time and the time
   required to activate the behavior of an LFA, which does not scale
   with the number of destinations to be fast-rerouted.

   Link and node protection are provided together and without any
   operational differences.  (As a comparison, MPLS TE FRR link and node
   protections require different types of backup tunnels and different
   grades of operational complexity.)

   Also, compared to MPLS TE FRR, an important simplicity aspect of the
   LFA solution is that it does not require the introduction of yet
   another virtual layer of topology.  Maintaining a virtual topology of
   explicit MPLS TE tunnels clearly increases the complexity of the
   network.  MPLS TE tunnels would have to be represented in a network
   management system in order to be monitored and managed.  In large
   networks, this may significantly contribute to the number of network
   entities polled by the network management system and monitored by
   operational staff.  An LFA, on the other hand, only has to be
   monitored for its operational status once per router, and it needs to
   be considered in the network-planning process.  If the latter is done
   based on offline simulations for failure cases anyway, the
   incremental cost of supporting LFAs for a defined set of demands may
   be relatively low.

   The per-prefix mode of LFAs allows for simpler and more efficient
   capacity planning.  As the backup path of each destination is
   optimized individually, the load to be fast-rerouted can be spread on
   a set of shortest repair paths (as opposed to a single backup
   tunnel).  This leads to a simpler and more efficient capacity-
   planning process that takes congestion during protection into
   account.

7.  Capacity Planning with LFA in Mind

   We briefly describe the functionality a designer should expect from a
   capacity-planning tool that supports LFAs, and the related capacity-
   planning process.

7.1.  Coverage Estimation - Default Topology

   Per-Link LFA Coverage Estimation: The tool would color each
   unidirectional link in, depending on whether or not per-link LFAs are
   available.

   Per-Prefix LFA Coverage Estimation: The tool would color each
   unidirectional link with a colored gradient, based on the percent of
   destinations that have a per-prefix LFA.

   In addition to the visual GUI reporting, the tool should provide
   detailed tables that list, on a per-interface basis, the percentage
   of LFAs, the number of prefixes with LFAs, the number of prefixes
   without LFAs, and a list of those prefixes without LFAs.

   Furthermore, the tool should list and provide percentages for the
   traffic matrix demands with less than 100% source-to-destination LFA
   coverage, as well as average coverage (number of links on which a
   demand has an LFA/number of links traversed by this demand) for every
   demand (using a threshold).

   The user should be able to alter the color scheme to show whether
   these LFAs are guaranteed node-protecting or de facto node-
   protecting, or only link-protecting.

   This functionality provides the same level of information as we
   described in Sections 4.1 to 4.3.

7.2.  Coverage Estimation in Relation to Traffic

   Instead of reporting the coverage as a ratio of the number of
   destinations with a backup, one might prefer a ratio of the amount of
   traffic on a link that benefits from protection.

   This is likely much more relevant, as not all destinations are equal,
   and it is much more important to have an LFA for a destination
   attracting lots of traffic rather than an unpopular destination.

7.3.  Coverage Verification for a Given Set of Demands

   Depending on the requirements on the network, it might be more
   relevant to verify the complete LFA coverage of a given sub-topology,
   or a given set of demands, rather than to calculate the relative
   coverage of the overall traffic.  This is most likely true for the
   third engineering profile described in Section 4.

   In that case, the tool should be able to separately report the LFA
   coverage on a given set of demands and highlight each part of the
   network that does not support 100% coverage for any of those demands.

7.4.  Modeling - What-If Scenarios - Coverage Impact

   The tool should be able to compute the coverage for all of the
   possible topologies that result from a set of expected failures
   (i.e., one-SRLG failure).

   Filtering the key information from the huge amount of generated data
   should be a key property of the tool.

   For example, the user could set a threshold (at least 80% per-prefix
   LFA coverage in all one-SRLG what-if scenarios), and the tool would
   report only the cases where this condition is not met, hopefully with
   some assistance on how to remedy the problem (IGP metric
   optimization).

   As an application example, a designer who is not able to ensure that
   c < a could leverage such a tool to assess the per-prefix LFA
   coverage for square aggregation topologies grafted to the backbone of
   his network.  The tool would analyze the per-prefix LFA availability
   for each remote destination and would help optimize the backbone
   topology to increase the LFA protection coverage for failures within
   the square aggregation topologies.

7.5.  Modeling - What-If Scenarios - Load Impact

   The tool should be able to compute the link load for all routing
   states that result from a set of expected failures (i.e., one-SRLG
   failure).

   The routing states that should be supported are 1) network-wide
   converged state before the failure, 2) state in which all of the LFAs
   protecting the failure are active, and 3) network-wide converged
   state after the failure.

   Filtering the key information from the huge amount of generated data
   should be a key property of the tool.

   For example, the user could set a threshold (at most 100% link load
   in all one-SRLG what-if scenarios), and the tool would report only
   the cases where this condition is violated, hopefully with some
   assistance on how to remedy the problem (IGP metric optimization).

   The tool should be able to do this for the aggregate load, and on a
   per-class-of-service basis as well.

      Note: In cases where the traffic matrix is unknown, an
      intermediate solution consists of identifying the destinations
      that would attract traffic (i.e., Provider Edge (PE) routers), and
      those that would not (i.e., Provider (P) routers).  One could
      achieve this by creating a traffic matrix with equal demands
      between the sources/destinations that would attract traffic (PE to
      PE).  This will be more relevant than considering all demands
      between all prefixes (e.g., when there is no customer traffic from
      P to P).

7.6.  Discussion on Metric Recommendations

   While LFA FRR has many benefits (Section 6), LFA FRR's applicability
   depends on topology.

   The purpose of this document is to show how to introduce a level of
   control over this topology parameter.

   On the one hand, we wanted to show that by adopting a small set of
   IGP metric constraints and a repetition of well-behaved patterns, the
   designer could deterministically guarantee maximum link and node
   protection for the vast majority of the network (the access/
   aggregation).  By doing so, he would obtain an extremely simple
   resiliency solution.

   On the other hand, we also wanted to show that it might not be so bad
   to not apply (all of) these constraints.

   Indeed, we explained in Section 3.3.4.3 that the per-prefix LFA
   coverage in a square where c >= a might still be very good, depending
   on the backbone topology.

   We showed in Section 4.3 that the median per-prefix LFA coverage for
   11 SP backbone topologies still provides 94% coverage.  (Most of
   these topologies were built without any idea of LFA!)

   Furthermore, we showed that any topology may be analyzed with an LFA-
   aware capacity-planning tool.  This would readily assess the coverage
   of per-prefix LFAs and would assist the designer in fine-tuning it to
   obtain the level of protection he seeks.

   While this document highlights LFA applicability and benefits for SP
   networks, it also notes that LFAs are not meant to replace MPLS
   TE FRR.

   With a very LFA-unfriendly topology, a designer seeking guaranteed
   <50-msec protection might be better off leveraging the explicit-
   routed backup capability of MPLS TE FRR to provide 100% protection
   while ensuring no congestion along the backup paths during
   protection.

   But when LFAs provide 100% link and node protection without any
   uLoop, then clearly the LFA method seems a technology to consider to
   drastically simplify the operation of a large-scale network.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations applicable to LFAs are described in
   [RFC5286].  This document does not introduce any new security
   considerations.

9.  Conclusions

   The LFA method is an important protection alternative for IP/MPLS
   networks.

   Its simplicity benefit is significant, in terms of automation and
   integration with the default IGP behavior and the absence of any
   requirement for network-wide upgrade.  The technology does not
   require any protocol change and hence can be deployed router by
   router.

   At first sight, these significant simplicity benefits are negated by
   the topological dependency of its applicability.

   The purpose of this document is to highlight that very frequent
   access and aggregation topologies benefit from excellent link and
   node LFA coverage.

   A second objective consists of describing the three different
   profiles of LFA applicability for the IP/MPLS core networks and
   illustrating them with simulation results based on real SP core
   topologies.

10.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Alvaro Retana and especially Stewart Bryant
   for their valuable comments on this work.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A., Ed., and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification
              for IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
              September 2008.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5714]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
              RFC 5714, January 2010.

   [RFC5715]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
              Convergence", RFC 5715, January 2010.

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [IS-IS]    ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, "Intermediate System
              to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange
              Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for
              Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
              (ISO 8473)", 2002.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Clarence Filsfils (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Brussels  1000
   BE

   EMail: cf@cisco.com

   Pierre Francois (editor)
   Institute IMDEA Networks
   Avda. del Mar Mediterraneo, 22
   Leganese  28918
   ES

   EMail: pierre.francois@imdea.org

   Mike Shand

   EMail: imc.shand@googlemail.com

   Bruno Decraene
   France Telecom
   38-40 rue du General Leclerc
   92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
   FR

   EMail: bruno.decraene@orange.com

   James Uttaro
   AT&T
   200 S. Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ  07748
   US

   EMail: uttaro@att.com

   Nicolai Leymann
   Deutsche Telekom
   Winterfeldtstrasse 21
   10781, Berlin
   DE

   EMail: N.Leymann@telekom.de

   Martin Horneffer
   Deutsche Telekom
   Hammer Str. 216-226
   48153, Muenster
   DE

   EMail: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA