Subject: RE: [TE-wg] TE use in today's networks

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:49:54 -0400

Jennifer/Mikkel:

  I understand that there are always trade-off for both 
  using TE dynamic link metrics and MPLS precomputed
  paths.

  But by looking at the progress in IETF, I would say
  every vendor is developing (in some or other form using
  proprietary methods) MPLS backup paths/crank back.
  MPLS integrates signaling & routing protocols very well to 
  do better link protection & and achieve TE by link coloring
  
  But I hardly saw in OSPF/ISIS WGs, any drafts on 
  dynamic recomputation of routes based on dynamic link
  weights. I doubt any vendor working on this to practically
  implement (not even in foreseeable future)

  This might be because, as Jennifer pointed out, full-fledged 
  deployment of MPLS opens up additional possibilities 
  (in addition to the existing IGP mechanisms) for more 
  efficient fail over (both in terms of routing efficiency 
  and convergence delay)

  It is better to compare/weigh advantages of different methods 
  than disadvantages in real implementation.

  Atleast some of the drafts in MPLS are in this direction:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gan-fast-reroute-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-05.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-00.txt

--Venkata Naidu

-> jrex> Depending on which link fails, the network load after 
-> the failure
-> jrex> isn't all that bad.  Although some failures can cause 
-> problems, often
-> jrex> one or two weight changes after the failure is enough 
-> to bring the
-> jrex> network back to a happy place (analogous to the need 
-> to fail over to
-> jrex> backup paths in MPLS).
-> 
-> ben> The difference in the MPLS case is that the backup paths can be
-> ben> configured in advance.  With TE using link metrics, you 
-> may be forced
-> ben> into changing the configuration when you least want to: during a
-> ben> failure situation.
-> 
-> [sorry for the slow reply]
-> 
-> You are absolutely right, but...
-> 
-> In both the MPLS and OSPF cases, there are two main issues
-> 
->   - detecting the failed/restored link
->   - changing to new paths
-> 
-> The first issue can be handled by the interface itself detecting the
-> failure or by lost heartbeats between the neighboring 
-> routers. Careful
-> selection of the heartbeat frequency can reduce the detection delay
-> (see 
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alaettinoglu-isis-convergence-0
0.txt).

In the OSPF case, the second issue could involve basic recomputation
of paths using the existing weights.  In many cases, the resulting
paths are not all that bad.  In some cases, some weights may need to
be changed to move to a better set of paths for the prevailing
traffic; in practice, it is sufficient to change one or two weights,
and these changes can be precomputed.  Yes, this does require a
network management system (or person) to effect the changes.  That is
a definitely a disadvantage, as you mention.  But, how significant is
this disadvantage?

The details of the MPLS case really depend on what MPLS features are
in use.  

  * On one extreme, you could imagine having precomputed backup
    paths (or even backup subpaths to replace individual link failures).
    Something has to trigger the failover to these backup paths.  In 
    theory, this can all be done without intervention by a network
    management system.  But, are MPLS implementations and deployments
    this mature yet?  Are the backup paths precomputed -- by the routers
    themselves or by an external management system?  

  * Another possibility is dynamic recomputation of routes based on
    dynamic link weights (set based on the prevailing traffic).  This
    requires the edge router to learn about the failure, compute a new
    path, and signal this path.  In fact, a single failure may cause a
    bunch of edge routers to compute a bunch of new paths.  What kind
    of signaling load does this introduce?  Are the local decisions
    made by each router (as the system moves to the new state) good 
    for the global traffic load?

In either case, the key question is whether or not this complexity is
warranted.  I don't doubt at all that the full-fledged deployment of
MPLS opens up additional possibilities (in addition to the existing
IGP mechanisms) for more efficient failover (both in terms of routing
efficiency and convergence delay).  But, how much, and at what added
complexity?  Some analysis or experiments to quantify these trade-offs
would be really useful to help folks operating networks make these
difficult decisions about how to approach traffic engineering and
fault tolerance.

-- Jen

---

From: Jennifer Rexford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:38:48 -0400 (EDT)

Venkata,

> But I hardly saw in OSPF/ISIS WGs, any drafts on dynamic recomputation
> of routes based on dynamic link weights. I doubt any vendor working on
> this to practically implement (not even in foreseeable future)

I'm not sure I understand.  The idea is to use OSPF/IS-IS as it exists
already, with "static" link weights (set manually by a network
operator or automagically by a network management system).  That is,
the routers do *not* need to talk amongst themselves to select the
weights.  Rather, the weights are selected externally based on global
observations of the traffic and the topology.  This would not mandate
any changes to the existing IGPs.  That is the main positive feature
of this approach -- it doesn't require any protocol changes or any new
working group activity.  (This is not to say that I necessarily
disagree with the other approaches.  Rather, I am saying that the
other approaches need to be compared with a "default" approach of
working within the existing technology base.)

-- Jen