[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Internet Engineering Task Force                       C. Alaettinoglu
Internet Draft                                        V. Jacobson
Expires in May, 2001                                  H. Yu
draft-alaettinoglu-isis-convergence-00.txt            Packet Design
                                                      November, 2000


Towards Milli-Second IGP Convergence

<draft-alaettinoglu-isis-convergence-00>

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at
any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow
Directories can be accessed at www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

It is possible for link-state routing protocols to converge in link
propagation time scales, that is, in tens of milliseconds. However,
current deployments of ISIS[ISIS-ISO][ISIS-IP], a link-state routing
protocol, are not anywhere near this point. In this paper, we present
some analyses of ISIS convergence by showing its behavior upon
link/router failures and repairs, and its scaling properties to
large networks, both in terms of number of nodes and links. We
then explore changes needed in the ISIS specification and implementations
to reach IGP convergence in milliseconds. Our results are based
on experimentation done with ISIS, but some of the findings may
apply to OSPF as well.

This paper contains color figures and graphs which are missing from
the ASCII version of the paper. The postscript and pdf versions
of this paper can be found in the Internet-Drafts repository.

1 Motivation

The theoretical limit for link-state routing protocols to re-route

Alaettinoglu, et. al.         Expires: May, 2000             [page  1 ]
^L
INTERNET DRAFT     draft-alaettinoglu-ISIS-convergence-00    November, 2000


is in link propagation time scales, that is in tens of milliseconds.
However, the current ISIS re-route times are in tens of seconds.
During the re-route period, a subset of destinations are either
not-reachable or are reached through non-optimal routes.

It is important to close this gap between theory and implementation
for several reasons. First, millisecond re-route times will lead
to increased network reliability since the periods at which routes
are not available/non-optimal will be shorter (one to three orders
of magnitude shorter). Second, it enables multi-service traffic
such as voice over IP since it decreases the number of packets
dropped to tolerable levels for these services. And finally, it
eliminates the need for more expensive and complex layer 2 protections
schemes, such as SONET.

There are three steps to ISIS re-routing: detection, propagation
and shortest path calculation. In the detection step, the topology
change is locally detected. That is, a link failure/repair is detected
by the routers the link is adjacent to, and a router failure/repair
is detected by the router's neighbors. In the propagation step,
a new link-state packet (LSP) reflecting the local topology after
the change is flooded to all the other routers in the network.
Finally, in the shortest path calculation step, each router having
received the new LSP computes the new routes using a shortest path
tree algorithm. Typically, Dijkstra's Shortest Path First (SPF)
algorithm is used in this calculation. Only after these three steps,
the re-route has completed, or equivalently we say that ISIS has
converged.

It is prudent to understand where the tens of seconds of re-route
times go before trying to fix ISIS re-routing. Hence, we have done
extensive experiments to characterize the time spent at each of
these steps. In our experiments, we tested ISIS running on Cisco
7200s running IOS 12.0S9 and IOS 12.1P and on Juniper M40s running
JunOS 4.1. In Sections [detection], [propagation], and [spf], we
present our findings on the detection, propagation, and shortest
path calculation steps respectively. In Section [summary], we summarize
our findings and suggest changes to ISIS protocol specification
and on its implementations.

 ISTalk Software

In many of our experiments, we emulated very large random networks.
To facilitate this, we developed a software tool called ISTalk.
ISTalk can establish adjacencies with ISIS routers and inject them
LSPs emulating any topology allowing us to vary both the number
of nodes and the number of edges in the network. This is graphically
illustrated in Figure [istalk].([fig] ISTalk Software emulates
virtual topologies.<istalk>)

2 Detection<detection>

The topology change, or the link-state change, is either detected

Alaettinoglu, et. al.         Expires: May, 2000             [page  2 ]
^L
INTERNET DRAFT     draft-alaettinoglu-ISIS-convergence-00    November, 2000


and communicated to ISIS by the lower level protocols (i.e. link
level protocols), or it is detected using the peer to peer ISIS
hello protocol. The link level detection is fastest but seems to
be inconsistently implemented by vendors. In our experiments, with
certain medium we noticed that the device driver detected the failure
but did not communicate it to the router's OS. The link level detection
is also not always possible, for example in a switched environment
where a router fails behind a switch. In this case, the switch
gets the link layer notification, but has no mechanism to notify
other routers in the network.

The ISIS hello protocol is more robust, but slower. In this case,
the adjacent routers send periodic hello packets to each other
(the adjacency is also established through the use of hello packets,
but not described here). If a router misses a fixed number of hello
packets from an adjacent router, it declares the adjacency to that
router down. By default, the routers send each other hello packets
every 10 seconds, and declare the adjacency down after missing
3 hello packets. Hence, with default parameters, the detection
can take up to 30 seconds. The specification limits the granularity
of hello interval to seconds, hence making 3 seconds the fastest
possible detection based on the hello protocol. Several ISPs use
2 second hello intervals, but declare an adjacency down after missing
5 hello packets, resulting in a detection time of 10 seconds.([fig] Hello
Experiment Setup<hello-setup>)

To study the effect of hello interval, we configured 3 routers in
a triangle topology and connected a workstation running ISTalk
to router 1 as shown in Figure [hello-setup]. The routers are connected
to each other using switched ethernet interfaces. Hence, when we
take down one of the routers, the other two have to rely on the
hello protocol to detect the change. The ISTalk establishes an
ISIS adjacency with router 1 so that it receives the LSPs flooded
in the network. The workstation pings the router 3 using router
3's interface address towards router 2 so that the pings follow
the path shown on the left hand side of Figure [hello-setup]. We
then bring down router 2 and after re-route the pings follow the
path shown on the right hand side of Figure [hello-setup]. The
pings are sent once every 100 milliseconds. ([fig] Packets received
by the workstation during the Hello Experiment<hello-received-packets>)

Figure [hello-received-packets] shows the relevant packets received
by the workstation. The short spikes are the ICMP ECHO REPLY packets
received; they are only received if there is a valid route to the
ping's destination and back. As seen in the figure, there is a
33 second period where there are no ICMP ECHO REPLY packets received.
This is the re-route time, during which router 1 does not have
a route to the destination. The two tall spikes are LSPs reflecting
the topology change as detected by routers 1 and 3. Note that the
two LSPs are separated by 1 second. This is because the two routers
detect the change at different times due to their 3 hello packet
intervals ending at different times. This separation can be anywhere
from 0 second to one full hello interval, in this case 10 seconds.

Alaettinoglu, et. al.         Expires: May, 2000             [page  3 ]
^L
INTERNET DRAFT     draft-alaettinoglu-ISIS-convergence-00    November, 2000


Why then after receipt of LSPs there is still 5 seconds of re-route
time? This is because the routers delay the SPF calculation by
a number of seconds (default is 5 seconds) in the hope that they
may catch more LSPs, particularly this second LSP in the figure,
and do one SPF calculation instead of many (because the costly
SPF calculation overwhelmed routers in the past). We refer to this
delay as the SPF delay. For millisecond convergence, the SPF delay
should be in milliseconds as well, and should ideally be zero.

The argument against a small hello interval is the bandwidth consumed
by the hello packets and the hello packets getting queued behind
data packets and the routers not receiving them in time. The most
desirable solution to the latter problem is to treat hello packets
preferentially over the data packets. In case this solution is
not available, we studied how the hello protocol is affected by
different hello intervals by simulating a link and varied both
the data load (using heavy tail traffic) and the hello interval
(as a fraction of the link's bandwidth). Figure [effect of hello interval]
shows the results. As seen from the figure, the hello interval
does not play a significant role, i.e. the hello packets do not
miss their deadlines, until the hello packets become a dominant
bandwidth consumer of the link's capacity.([fig] Effect of hello
interval and load on the Hello Protocol.<effect of hello interval>)

Since the protocol's ultimate limit on the hello interval is set
by the bandwidth used by hello packets, extending the specification
to allow sub-second intervals would allow sub-second detection
on almost all links. This does not mean that the detection time
can be made arbitrarily small, only that detection should be limited
by the physical constraints of the link (its bandwidth, propagation
delay, etc), not by arbitrary clock granularities set by the protocol
designers.

 Detection: stability and damping

For either event triggered (via the link layer notification) or
hello driven detection, there are network-wide stability issues
if routing tries to follow rapid link transients (i.e., a link
that goes down and up several times a second). Making hello interval
smaller may seem like allowing more instability into the network.
The usual way of dealing with this is to treat "bad news" differently
from the "good news" so routing is quick to find an alternate path
on any failure but slow to switch back when the link comes up.
The current ISIS specification treats bad news and good news the
same way but it should be trivial to change the detection specification
to allow different filtering constants for "down" and "up" state
changes.

3 Propagation<propagation>

After a topological change is detected, a new link state packet
(LSP) is generated at the point of detection and then flooded unmodified
(except for the "remaining life" field) through the network. Flooding

Alaettinoglu, et. al.         Expires: May, 2000             [page  4 ]
^L
INTERNET DRAFT     draft-alaettinoglu-ISIS-convergence-00    November, 2000


should propagate the LSP across the network at near the speed of
light plus one store-and-forward delay per hop. Thus, in theory
the LSP propagation should make a negligible contribution to the
re-route time. Unfortunately, this is not what we observed.

In our experiment, we connected 3 routers in a line topology using
switched ethernet as shown in Figure [LSP Experiment Setup]. The
ISTalk established ISIS adjacencies with router 1 on its interface
0 and with router 3 on its interface 3. It also passively listened
on its interfaces 1 and 2. Our experiments simulated networks of
varying sizes. In the steady state, that is after three routers
think they are part of a large network, we injected an LSP at interface
0 and observed the delay until it appeared at other interfaces
of the workstation.

Since the SPF calculation can take a significant amount of time
(see Section [spf]), commercial router implementations impose a
limit on how frequently the SPF calculation can be done using the
SPF delay parameter. In some implementations this is 5 seconds
fixed. In some implementations, this is changeable but the granularity
is in seconds. This limit essentially adds to the propagation time.
In this experiment, to remove its affect we set the SPF delay to
zero seconds.([fig] LSP Propagation Experiment Setup.<LSP Experiment Setup>)

Figure [LSP Propagation Results] shows the results for 500, 800
and 1000 node topologies (the average node degree is fixet at 5).
The x-axis is the interface number and the y-axis is the time in
seconds at which the LSP is seen. As seen from the figure, propagating
an LSP across 3 routers takes close to one second and propagation
time is related to the topology size. The reason for this delay
is related to the topology size is that the routers are performing
the SPF calculation before propagating the LSPs. ([fig] LSP Propagation
Experiment Results.<LSP Propagation Results>)

In our experiment, we set SPF delay to zero seconds resulting in
a race condition at the routers between performing an SPF calculation
or propagating the LSP. The routers chose to do the SPF calculation
first. This degrades the propagation time from near the speed of
light to O(diameter\times SPFtime). To prevent this, the specification
might be amended to explicitly state that the LSP flooding is higher
priority than the SPF calculation.

4 Shortest Path Calculation<spf>

The final step in re-route is to compute new routes using a shortest
path tree algorithm, typically Dijkstra's Shortest Path First algorithm.
For sparse topologies, a binary heap implementation of Dijkstra's
algorithm has O(n\log n) complexity, and a naive implementation
has O(n^{2}) complexity. Figures [vary nodes] shows the SPF calculation
time in milliseconds versus number of nodes in the network. The
Figure [vary nodes log] shows the same but the y-axis is in log
scale. In this experiment each node had a fixed number of neighbors,
5.([fig] SPF calculation time versus number of nodes.<vary nodes>)

Alaettinoglu, et. al.         Expires: May, 2000             [page  5 ]
^L
INTERNET DRAFT     draft-alaettinoglu-ISIS-convergence-00    November, 2000


([fig] SPF
calculation time versus number of nodes (log scale).<vary nodes log>) The
top 3 curves are the commercial router vendor implementations (collected
at the Ciscos using "show isis spf log" and using "show isis spf-log"
in Junipers). The bottom curve is an in-house implementation of
Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm. All the time values are wall-clock
times, and there is no other load on the routers. The SPF calculation
is indeed CPU intensive, taking 100s of milliseconds. As can be
seen from the log-scale graph, the bottom 3 curves have the same
shape. As a matter of fact an n\log n curve fits perfectly to them,
unfortunately the top curve, one of the commercial router implementations
fits an n^{2} curve perfectly.([fig] SPF calculation time versus
number of edges per node.<vary degree>) In Figure [vary degree],
we kept the number of nodes at 300 but varied the average number
of edges per node. Today, some ISPs have full-mesh topologies (using
ATM/MPLS technologies) and run ISIS over it. With full-mesh, the
SPF calculation is even more intense, almost about one second.

As illustrated by these experiments, even in high-end platforms,
the SPF calculation can take a long time (seconds) and has poor
scaling properties (n\log n to n^{2}). This has a serious impact
both on re-route times since the SPF calculation is in series with
the LSP propagation and on overall network stability since the
CPU on the routers will be saturated. To fix this, an algorithm
that scales much better than Dijkstra's is needed. Dijkstra's algorithm
re-computes all routes after a topology change regardless of whether
they were affected or not, each time starting from scratch. More
recent algorithms[Franciosa97:dijk][Frigioni94:dijk][Narvaez99:dijk]
store the data structures from earlier calculations and only re-compute
the affected routes. Their average case complexity is O(\log n).

We implemented one of these algorithms and results for 300 node
topology with degree varied are shown in Figure [dynamic SPT].
Note that the y-axis, SPF time in milliseconds, is in log scale,
and the new dynamic shortest path tree algorithm computes new routes
in microseconds, that is 10,000 times faster than the commercial
implementations of Dijkstra's algorithm. Note that with the dynamic
shortest path tree algorithm, the calculation time first increases
and then decreases. This is because as the average degree increases,
the number of affected nodes by a topology change first increases
and then decreases. In the case of a full-mesh topology, the number
of affected nodes is often only one node.([fig] Dynamic SPT algorithm
is 10,000 times faster.<dynamic SPT>)

5 Summary of Findings and Reccomendations<summary>

Stable, robust IP re-routing that works at the network's propagation
time (the theoretical maximum for any re-routing scheme) is both
possible and achievable. To get there, we have to make some minor
changes to the ISIS specification in the following priority order:

* switch to a modern algorithm for the SPF calculation


Alaettinoglu, et. al.         Expires: May, 2000             [page  6 ]
^L
INTERNET DRAFT     draft-alaettinoglu-ISIS-convergence-00    November, 2000


* make the granularity of the Hello Interval in millisecond, rather
  than seconds

* allow different detection and damping filter constants for the
  link up and down events, i.e. differentiate good and bad news

* give higher priority to LSP propagation than SPF computation

* queue hello packets in front of data packets

What we did not see: During our experiments, we injected topologies
with 90,000 edges, thousands of nodes, drove all the routers to
100% CPU utilization, randomly unplugged links and powered down
routers. Although we were looking for it, we saw no evidence of
routing instability and we observed several subtle things done
to avoid getting into an unstable operating regime. For example,
even under 100% CPU utilization, the routers have never missed
sending out an hello packet. If they did, they could have dropped
adjacencies, causing more link-state changes, which in turn causing
more routing load, and which in turn causing more hello packet
being missed and so on. It appears that the two vendors we looked
at have learned a lot from a decade's worth or routing disasters
and meltdowns and are currently shipping robust routing code.

What we did not look for: In full-mesh topologies, each newly generated
LSP is received by a router n times, one from each of its neighboring
routers. Even though the router only performs one SPF for this
LSP, it needs to recognize that the other n-1 LSPs are duplicates.
When a router goes down in a full-mesh topology, each router loses
an adjacency and generates a new LSP. Hence, routers now need to
recognize O(n^{2}) duplicate LSPs and perform up to O(n) SPF calculations
(in practice LSPs received while performing an SPF calculation
are bundled together for the next round of SPF calculation). We
did not design experiments to study the time it takes to recognize
O(n^{2}) duplicate LSPs since there are already proposals[mpls-unnum]
addressing this issue.

6 Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to the Global Crossing Production Testing Lab,
Cisco Systems, and Juniper Networks for allowing us to use their
facilities to perform some of these tests. Authors would also like
to thank Kathie Nichols, Judy Estrin, Chia-Chee Kuan, and Doug
Klein for their comments on this document.

7 References



8 Authors' Addresses

Cengiz Alaettinoglu
Packet Design

Alaettinoglu, et. al.         Expires: May, 2000             [page  7 ]
^L
INTERNET DRAFT     draft-alaettinoglu-ISIS-convergence-00    November, 2000


66 Willow Place
Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA
email: cengiz@packetdesign.com

Van Jacobson
Packet Design
66 Willow Place
Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA
email: van@packetdesign.com

Haobo Yu
Packet Design
66 Willow Place
Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA
email: haoboy@packetdesign.com


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/