Draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt1 BGP/MPLS Traffic Blackhole Avoidance Proposal draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00 Rajiv Asati.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
APNOMS03 1 A Resilient Path Management for BGP/MPLS VPN Jong T. Park School of Electrical Eng. And Computer Science Kyungpook National University
Advertisements

March 2010IETF 77, MPLS WG1 Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs draft-rekhter-pim-sm-over-mldp-01.txt Y. Rekhter, Juniper Networks R.
MPLS VPN.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v MPLS VPN Technology Introducing the MPLS VPN Routing Model.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs and VPLS draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-mvpn-vpls-mcast-
Deployment of MPLS VPN in Large ISP Networks
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 BGP Diverse Paths draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-paths-dist-02 Keyur Patel.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 MPLS Scale to 100k endpoints with resiliency and simplicity Clarence.
1 © 2000, Cisco Systems, Inc. Integrated-ISIS Route Leaking.
MPLS Over L3VPN Ron Bonica. Reference Model and Requirement 1 C0 CE1 CE2 C3 PE1 P1 Customer VPN Site A Customer VPN Site B Service Provider L3VPN Customer.
© 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1 Segment Routing Clarence Filsfils – Distinguished Engineer Christian Martin –
MPLS-VPN/BGP Approach Hari Rakotoranto Technical Marketing Engineer
Pseudowire Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00 Rahul Aggarwal Yimin Shen
Draft-chen-i2rs-mpls-ldp-usecases-00/ draft-huang-i2rs-mpls-te-usecase-00 IETF 88 I2RS1 Use Cases for an Interface to MPLS Protocol draft-chen-i2rs-mpls-ldp-usecases-00/
MPLS L3 and L2 VPNs Virtual Private Network –Connect sites of a customer over a public infrastructure Requires: –Isolation of traffic Terminology –PE,
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—5#-1 MPLS VPN Implementation Configuring OSPF as the Routing Protocol Between PE and CE Routers.
Routing of Outgoing Packets with MP-TCP draft-handley-mptcp-routing-00 Mark Handley Costin Raiciu Marcelo Bagnulo.
IETF Prague Multicast-only Fast ReRoute (MoFRR) Clarence Filsfils Apoorva Karan Dino Farinacci March, 2011.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.ROUTE v1.0—6-1 Connecting an Enterprise Network to an ISP Network Planning the Enterprise-to-ISP Connection.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—4-1 MPLS VPN Technology Forwarding MPLS VPN Packets.
Extension to LDP-VPLS for Ethernet Broadcast and Multicast draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 Presenter: Zhihua Liu, China Telecom IETF79,
1 © 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential Session Number Presentation_ID Advanced BGP Convergence Techniques Pradosh Mohapatra.
Virtual Subnet : A L3VPN-based Subnet Extension Solution draft-xu-virtual-subnet-10 Xiaohu Xu (Huawei) Susan Hares (Huawei) Yongbing Fan.
66th IETF Montreal July 2006 Requirements for delivering MPLS services Over L3VPN draft-kumaki-l3VPN-e2e-mpls-rsvp-te-reqts-01.txt Kenji Kumaki KDDI, Editor.
November th Requirements for supporting Customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN draft-kumaki-l3VPN-e2e-mpls-rsvp-te-reqts-05.txt.
VPLS Extensions for Provider Backbone Bridging - draft-balus-l2vpn-vpls-802.1ah-01.txt John Hoffmans – KPN Geraldine Calvignac - France Telecom Raymond.
Kenji Kumaki KDDI, Editor Raymond Zhang BT Nabil Bitar Verizon
IETF 68, MPLS WG, Prague P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-01.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal.
P2MP MPLS-TE FRR with P2MP Bypass Tunnel draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal (Juniper) IETF 67, MPLS WG,
61st IETF Washington DC November 2004 BGP/MPLS IP Multicast VPNs draft-yasukawa-l3vpn-p2mp-mcast-00.txt Seisho Yasukawa (NTT) Shankar Karuna (Motorola)
Virtual Topologies for Service Chaining in BGP IP/MPLS VPNs draft-rfernando-bess-service-chaining-00 (previously draft-rfernando-l3vpn-service-chaining-04)
VPLS Extensions for Provider Backbone Bridging - draft-balus-l2vpn-vpls-802.1ah-02.txt John Hoffmans – Geraldine Calvignac -
Draft-li-mpls-network-virtualization-framework-00IETF 88 SPRING WG1 Framework of Network Virtualization Based on MPLS Global Label draft-li-mpls-network-virtualization-framework-00.
A Snapshot on MPLS Reliability Features Ping Pan March, 2002.
Inter AS option D (draft-mapathak-interas-option-d-00) Manu Pathak Keyur Patel Arjun Sreekantiah November 2012.
Using BGP between PE and CE in EVPN draft-li-l2vpn-evpn-pe-ce-01 Zhenbin Li, Junlin Zhuang, Shunwan Zhuang (Huawei Technologies) IETF 90, Toronto, Canada.
1MPLS QOS 10/00 © 2000, Cisco Systems, Inc. rfc2547bis VPN Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
LISP Deployment Scenarios Darrel Lewis and Margaret Wasserman IETF 76, Hiroshima, Japan.
MPLS VPNs by Richard Bannister. The Topology The next two slides display both the physical and logical topology of our simple example network –Please.
57 th IETF VIENNA draft-sheng-ppvpn-isis-bgp-mpls vpn-01.txt 57 th IETF meeting IS-IS as the PE/CE Protocol in BGP/MPLS VPN draft-sheng-ppvpn-isis-bgp-mpls-00.txt.
D1 - 08/12/2015 Requirements for planned maintenance of BGP sessions draft-dubois-bgp-pm-reqs-02.txt
Support for RSVP in Layer 3 VPNs draft-davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-01.txt Bruce Davie François le Faucheur Ashok Narayanan Cisco Systems.
OSPF Version 2 as the Customer Edge/Customer Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
LDP extension for Inter-Area LSP draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04 Bruno DecraeneFrance Telecom / Orange Jean-Louis Le RouxFrance Telecom / Orange Ina.
1 Multicast Routing Blackhole Avoidance draft-asati-pim-multicast-routing-blackhole-avoid-00 Rajiv Asati Mike McBride IETF 72, Dublin.
IP Traffic Engineering RSP draft-shen-ip-te-rsp-01.txt Naiming Shen Albert Tian Jun Zhuang
Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6- only MPLS Networks draft-george-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-01 Wes George (operator asking for it) Carlos Pignataro, Rajiv Asati.
Applicability of Existing Solutions to the Problem Space draft-takeda-l1vpn-applicability-03.txt.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in VPLS draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal.
A Snapshot on MPLS Reliability Features Ping Pan March, 2002.
2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection draft-minto-2547-egress-node-fast-protection-00 Jeyananth Minto Maciek
Upstream LSR Redundancy for Multi-point LDP Tunnels draft-pdutta-mpls-mldp-up-redundancy-00.txt IETF-81 Pranjal Kumar Dutta Wim Henderickx Alcatel-Lucent.
Inter-AS Option C between NVO3 and BGP/MPLS IP VPN network draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc-00 Weiguo Hao Lucy Yong Susan Hares Nov, 2014 Honolulu.
MPLS WG Meeting IETF 58 Paris Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures in Inter-AS and inter-provider Scenarios draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-00.txt Tom.
Tunnel SAFI draft-nalawade-kapoor-tunnel- safi-03.txt SSA Attribute draft-kapoor-nalawade-idr- bgp-ssa-01.txt.
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 Bidirectional P-tunnels in MVPN Bidirectional P-tunnel: MP2MP LSP per RFC 6388 PIM MDT per RFC 5015, GRE Encapsulation Accommodated.
82 nd Taipei Protection Mechanisms for LDP P2MP/MP2MP LSP draft-zhao-mpls-mldp-protections-00.txt Quintin Zhao, Emily Chen, Huawei.
MPLS Introduction How MPLS Works ?? MPLS - The Motivation MPLS Application MPLS Advantages Conclusion.
1 MTU Extended Community for BGP-4 Q. Zeng, J. Dong (Huawei Technologies) IETF81 IDR July 2011 Quebec draft-zeng-idr-bgp-mtu-extension-00.
EDCS IETF 81, Jul/2011, Quebec City, Canadadraft-bashandy-idr-bgp-repair-label-02 Scalable Loop Free BGP FRR Using Repair Label draft-bashandy-idr-bgp-repair-label-02.
TRILL T RANSPARENT T RANSPORT OVER MPLS draft-muks-trill-transport-over-mpls-00 Mohammad Umair, Kingston Smiler, Donald Eastlake, Lucy Yong.
draft-patel-raszuk-bgp-vector-routing-01
Presenter: Jeffrey Zhang
L1VPN Working Group Scope
Yimin Shen (Juniper) Rahul Aggarwal (Arktan Inc)
LDP signaled LSPs for external prefixes
Guide: Dr. Vishal Sharma Group 8: Pujara Chirag ( )
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing- 00.txt
Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing draft-gulkohegde-spring-separating-routing-planes-using-sr-00 IETF 98 – Chicago, USA Shraddha Hegde
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for EVPN Ethernet Segment Failover Use Case draft-zwm-bess-es-failover-00 BESS WG IETF104# Prague Sandy Zhang.
Presentation transcript:

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt1 BGP/MPLS Traffic Blackhole Avoidance Proposal draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00 Rajiv Asati Raymond Zhang Tom Nadeau Azhar Sayeed IETF 68, March 21st 2007 Prague

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 2 Agenda Background / Motivation Problem Statement Solution Scope Next Steps

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 3 Background / Motivation MPLS data plane failure may occur due to  LDP failure  Label mismatch  Forwarding entry corruption  Misconfiguration.. The MPLS network pretends to have the reachability to the remote BGP prefixes, even during the (MPLS) data plane failure.  The network continues to advertise the prefix reachability to the outside world. It is not optimal to attract the (VPN) customer traffic and blackhole it inside the MPLS network. Sub-optimal or Plain WRONG?

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 4 Background / Motivation Deployment scenario#1 – CE2 is dual-homed. The Site1->site2 traffic may get blackholed during the PE1->PE3 LSP failure.  Without iBGP multipath at PE1, all site-to-site traffic get blackholed  With iBGP multipath at PE1, some traffic get blackholed. This blackholing may happen independent of whether the LSP is setup in an “ordered” or “independent” mode, though the ordered mode may help to avoid the blackholing during LDP failure. MPLS Backbone PE1 PE2 CE1 CE2 P1 PE3 P3 LSP failure PE1->PE3 LSP PE1->PE2 LSP MP-BGP PE1 selects the BGP path via PE3 Site#1Site#2 Routing Protocol Despite the MPLS data plane failure, PE1 is unaware and CE1 continues to prefer PE1 to deliver the CE2-destined traffic.

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 5 Background / Motivation Deployment Scenario#2 – Single-homed CE2 site connected to CE1 via a backup link, and PE1->P2 LSP fails. Site1->site2 traffic may get blackholed. CE1 may not activate the backup path (via 2 nd SP or ISP, or dial-up or p2p link etc.), since PE1 continues to advertise the reachability to the site#2. MPLS Backbone PE1 PE2 CE1 CE2 P1 P3 Backup link (dial-up/Internet/FR..) MP-BGP Site#1Site#2 LSP failure PE1->PE2 LSP Routing Protocol Despite the MPLS data plane failure, CE1 continues to prefer PE1 to deliver the CE2-destined traffic. Site-to-site Backup link

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 6 Problem Statement Labeled BGP prefixes (such as VPNv4) depend on the MPLS path to the NEXT_HOP BGP bestpath selection algorithm currently considers only IP reachability to the NEXT_HOP BGP is not aware of the MPLS reachability to the NEXT_HOP.

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 7 Solution BGP to be made aware of the MPLS reachability to the NEXT_HOP. The label availability doesn’t mean much. ‘BGP bestpath selection’ algorithm needs to include ‘MPLS reachability’ to the NEXT_HOP as an additional criterion. The MPLS reachability to the NEXT_HOP could be validated and recorded in the “LSP Health Database” (LHD).

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 8 Scope of the Draft Proposes a mechanism (within BGP) to consider the valid "MPLS path" to the NEXT_HOP of the BGP path, before qualifying that BGP path as the bestpath candidate. Valid MPLS path = Functional LSP (not just the label). Does not intend to Assume that ‘LSP failure’ always equals ‘broken LDP session’. Enforce any particular LSP validation technique and frequency Replace the MPLS FRR Suggest the techniques to keep the LHD* up-to-date Explain how the ‘LSP validation’ should be performed * LHD=LSP Health Database

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 9 Advantages After detecting the LSP failure to PE2, PE1 disqualifies the BGP path from PE2. After PE1 withdraws the route from CE1, CE1 can select the backup path (via 2 nd SP, ISP, Dial-up etc), and restore the site-to-site connectivity. MPLS Backbone PE1 PE2 CE1 CE2 P1 P3 Backup link (dial-up/Internet/FR..) MP-BGP Site#1Site#2 LSP failure PE1->PE2 LSP Routing Protocol PE1 disqualifies the BGP path via PE2 and withdraws it from CE2 CE1 can reroute the traffic over the alternative path

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 10 Next Step WG to suggest…

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 11 draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt THANK YOU!

draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00.txt 12 Additional Slide#1 There are a lot of deployments that rely on out-of-band LSP health checks to detect the LSP failure Usage of internal or external toolkit to detect the LSP failure Such out-of-band mechanisms don’t do anything wrt MPLS VPN traffic blackholing