OpenRFC.org Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
 
<< Previous <<      RFC 4829      >> Next >>    
Label Switched Path (LSP) Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering.
J. de Oliveira, Ed., JP. Vasseur, Ed., L. Chen, C. Scoglio. April 2007.

 
[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]
 

Network Working Group J. de Oliveira, Ed. Request for Comments: 4829 Drexel University Category: Informational JP. Vasseur, Ed. Cisco Systems, Inc. L. Chen Verizon Laboratories C. Scoglio Kansas State University April 2007 Label Switched Path (LSP) Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering Status of This Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). IESG Note This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and, in particular, notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information. Abstract When the establishment of a higher priority (Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path) TE LSP requires the preemption of a set of lower priority TE LSPs, a node has to make a local decision to select which TE LSPs will be preempted. The preempted LSPs are then rerouted by their respective Head-end Label Switch Router (LSR). This document presents a flexible policy that can be used to achieve different objectives: preempt the lowest priority LSPs; preempt the minimum number of LSPs; preempt the set of TE LSPs that provide the closest amount of bandwidth to the required bandwidth for the preempting TE LSPs (to minimize bandwidth wastage); preempt the LSPs that will have the maximum chance to get rerouted. Simulation results are given and de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 a comparison among several different policies, with respect to preemption cascading, number of preempted LSPs, priority, wasted bandwidth and blocking probability is also included. Table of Contents 1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. LSP Setup Procedure and Preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Preemption Cascading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Preemption Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Preempting Resources on a Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Preemption Heuristic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Simple Case: Single Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Network Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 1. Motivation The IETF Traffic Engineering Working Group has defined the requirements and protocol extensions for DiffServ-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) [RFC3564] [RFC4124]. Several Bandwidth Constraint models for use with DS-TE have been proposed [RFC4127] [RFC4128] [RFC4126] and their performance was analyzed with respect to the use of preemption. Preemption can be used as a tool to help ensure that high priority LSPs can always be routed through relatively favorable paths. Preemption can also be used to implement various prioritized access policies as well as restoration policies following fault events [RFC2702]. Although not a mandatory attribute in the traditional IP world, preemption becomes important in networks using online, distributed Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) strategies for their Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) path computation to limit the impact of bandwidth fragmentation. Moreover, preemption is an attractive strategy in an MPLS network in which traffic is treated in a differentiated manner and high-importance traffic may be given special treatment over lower-importance traffic [DEC-PREP, ATM-PREP]. Nevertheless, in the DS-TE approach, whose issues and requirements are discussed in [RFC3564], the preemption policy is considered an important piece on the bandwidth reservation and management puzzle, but no preemption strategy is defined. Note that preemption also plays an important role in regular MPLS Traffic Engineering environments (with a single pool of bandwidth). This document proposes a flexible preemption policy that can be adjusted in order to give different weight to various preemption criteria: priority of LSPs to be preempted, number of LSPs to be preempted, amount of bandwidth preempted, blocking probability. The implications (cascading effect, bandwidth wastage, priority of preempted LSPs) of selecting a certain order of importance for the criteria are discussed for the examples given. 2. Introduction In [RFC2702], issues and requirements for Traffic Engineering in an MPLS network are highlighted. In order to address both traffic- oriented and resource-oriented performance objectives, the authors point out the need for priority and preemption parameters as Traffic Engineering attributes of traffic trunks. The notion of preemption and preemption priority is defined in [RFC3272], and preemption attributes are defined in [RFC2702] and [RFC3209]. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 A traffic trunk is defined as an aggregate of traffic flows belonging to the same class that are placed inside an LSP [RFC3564]. In this context, preemption is the act of selecting an LSP that will be removed from a given path in order to give room to another LSP with a higher priority (lower preemption number). More specifically, the preemption attributes determine whether an LSP with a certain setup preemption priority can preempt another LSP with a lower holding preemption priority from a given path, when there is competition for available resources. Note that competing for resources is one situation in which preemption can be triggered, but other situations may exist, themselves controlled by a policy. For readability, a number of definitions from [RFC3564] are repeated here: Class-Type (CT): The set of Traffic Trunks crossing a link that is governed by a specific set of Bandwidth constraints. CT is used for the purposes of link bandwidth allocation, constraint-based routing, and admission control. A given Traffic Trunk belongs to the same CT on all links. TE-Class: A pair of: i. A Class-Type. ii. A preemption priority allowed for that Class-Type. This means that an LSP transporting a Traffic Trunk from that Class-Type can use that preemption priority as the set-up priority, as the holding priority, or both. By definition, there may be more than one TE-Class using the same CT, as long as each TE-Class uses a different preemption priority. Also, there may be more than one TE-Class with the same preemption priority, provided that each TE-Class uses a different CT. The network administrator may define the TE-Classes in order to support preemption across CTs, to avoid preemption within a certain CT, or to avoid preemption completely, when so desired. To ensure coherent operation, the same TE-Classes must be configured in every Label Switched Router (LSR) in the DS-TE domain. As a consequence of a per-TE-Class treatment, the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) needs to advertise separate Traffic Engineering information for each TE-Class, which consists of the Unreserved Bandwidth (UB) information [RFC4124]. The UB information will be used by the routers, checking against the bandwidth constraint model parameters, to decide whether preemption is needed. Details on how to calculate the UB are given in [RFC4124]. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 3. LSP Setup Procedure and Preemption A new LSP setup request has two important parameters: bandwidth and preemption priority. The set of LSPs to be preempted can be selected by optimizing an objective function that represents these two parameters, and the number of LSPs to be preempted. More specifically, the objective function could be any, or a combination, of the following [DEC-PREP, ATM-PREP]: * Preempt the LSPs that have the least priority (preemption priority). The Quality of Service (QoS) of high priority traffic would be better satisfied, and the cascading effect described below can be limited. * Preempt the least number of LSPs. The number of LSPs that need to be rerouted would be lower. * Preempt the least amount of bandwidth that still satisfies the request. Resource utilization could be improved. The preemption of larger TE LSPs (more than requested) by the newly signaled TE LSP implies a larger amount of bandwidth to be rerouted, which is likely to increase the probability of blocking (inability to find a path for some TE LSPs). * Preempt LSPs that minimize the blocking probability (risk that preempted TE LSP cannot be rerouted). After the preemption selection phase is finished, the selected LSPs are signaled as preempted and the new LSP is established (if a new path satisfying the constraints can be found). The UB information is then updated via flooding of an IGP-TE update and/or simply pruning the link where preemption occurred. Figure 1 shows a flowchart that summarizes how each LSP setup request is treated in a preemption- enabled scenario. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 LSP Setup Request (TE-Class i, bw=r) | | v NO UB[TE-Class i] >= r ? -------> Reject LSP Setup and flood an updated IGP-TE | LSA/LSP |YES v NO Preemption Needed ? -------> Setup LSP/Update UB if a threshold is | crossed | YES v Preemption ----> Setup LSP/Reroute Preempted LSPs Algorithm Update UB Figure 1: Flowchart for LSP setup procedure. In [DEC-PREP], the authors propose connection preemption policies that optimize the discussed criteria in a given order of importance: number of LSPs, bandwidth, and priority; bandwidth, priority, and number of LSPs. The novelty in our approach is the use of an objective function that can be adjusted by the service provider in order to stress the desired criteria. No particular criteria order is enforced. Moreover, a new criterion is added to the objective function: optimize the blocking probability (to minimize the risk that an LSP is not rerouted after being preempted). 4. Preemption Cascading The decision of preempting an LSP may cause other preemptions in the network. This is called preemption cascading effect and different cascading levels may be achieved by the preemption of a single LSP. The cascading levels are defined in the following manner: when an LSP is preempted and rerouted without causing any further preemption, the cascading is said to be of level zero. However, when a preempted LSP is rerouted, and in order to be established in the new route it also causes the preemption of other LSPs, the cascading is said to be of level 1, and so on. Preemption cascading is not desirable and therefore policies that minimize it are of interest. Typically, this can result in severe network instabilities. In Section 5, a new versatile preemption heuristic will be presented. In Section 6, preemption simulation results will be discussed and the cascading effect will be analyzed. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 5. Preemption Heuristic 5.1. Preempting Resources on a Path It is important to note that once a request for an LSP setup arrives, each LSR along the TE LSP path checks the available bandwidth on its outgoing link. For the links in which the available bandwidth is not enough, the preemption policy needs to be activated in order to guarantee the end-to-end bandwidth reservation for the new LSP. This is a distributed approach, in which every node on the path is responsible for running the preemption algorithm and determining which LSPs would be preempted in order to fit the new request. A distributed approach may not lead to an optimal solution. Alternatively, in a centralized approach, a manager entity runs the preemption policy and determines the best LSPs to be preempted in order to free the required bandwidth in all the links that compose the path. The preemption policy would try to select LSPs that overlap with the path being considered (preempt a single LSP that overlaps with the route versus preempt a single LSP on every link that belongs to the route). Both centralized and distributed approaches have advantages and drawbacks. A centralized approach would be more precise, but require that the whole network state be stored and updated accordingly, which raises scalability issues. In a network where LSPs are mostly static, an offline decision can be made to reroute LSPs and the centralized approach could be appropriate. However, in a dynamic network in which LSPs are set up and torn down in a frequent manner because of new TE LSPs, bandwidth increase, reroute due to failure, etc., the correctness of the stored network state could be questionable. Moreover, the setup time is generally increased when compared to a distributed solution. In this scenario, the distributed approach would bring more benefits, even when resulting in a non-optimal solution (The gain in optimality of a centralized approach compared to a distributed approach depends on many factors: network topology, traffic matrix, TE strategy, etc.). A distributed approach is also easier to be implemented due to the distributed nature of the current Internet protocols. Since the current Internet routing protocols are essentially distributed, a decentralized approach was selected for the LSP preemption policy. The parameters required by the new preemption policies are currently available for OSPF and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS). de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 5.2. Preemption Heuristic Algorithm Consider a request for a new LSP setup with bandwidth b and setup preemption priority p. When preemption is needed, due to lack of available resources, the preemptable LSPs will be chosen among the ones with lower holding preemption priority (higher numerical value) in order to fit r=b-Abw(l). The variable r represents the actual bandwidth that needs to be preempted (the requested, b, minus the available bandwidth on link l: Abw(l)). L is the set of active LSPs having a holding preemption priority lower (numerically higher) than p. So L is the set of candidates for preemption. b(l) is the bandwidth reserved by LSP l in L, expressed in bandwidth units, and p(l) is the holding preemption priority of LSP l. In order to represent a cost for each preemption priority, an associated cost y(l) inversely related to the holding preemption priority p(l) is defined. For simplicity, a linear relation y(l)=8-p(l) is chosen. y is a cost vector with L components, y(l). b is a reserved bandwidth vector with dimension L, and components b(l). Concerning the objective function, four main objectives can be reached in the selection of preempted LSPs: * minimize the priority of preempted LSPs, * minimize the number of preempted LSPs, * minimize the preempted bandwidth, * minimize the blocking probability. To have the widest choice on the overall objective that each service provider needs to achieve, the following equation was defined (for simplicity chosen as a weighted sum of the above mentioned criteria): H(l)= alpha y(l) + beta 1/b(l) + gamma (b(l)-r)^2 + theta b(l) In this equation: - alpha y(l) captures the cost of preempting high priority LSPs. - beta 1/b(l) penalizes the preemption of low bandwidth LSPs, capturing the cost of preempting a large number of LSPs. - gamma (b(l)-r)^2 captures the cost of preemption of LSPs that are much larger or much smaller than r. - theta b(l) captures the cost of preempting large LSPs. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 Coefficients alpha, beta, gamma, and theta can be chosen to emphasize one or more components of H. The coefficient theta is defined such that theta = 0 if gamma > 0. This is because when trying to minimize the blocking probability of preempted LSPs, the heuristic gives preference to preempting several small LSPs (therefore gamma, which is the weight for minimizing the preempted bandwidth enforcing the selection of LSPs with similar amount of bandwidth as the requested, needs to be set as zero). The selection of several small LSPs in a normally loaded portion of the network will increase the chance that such LSPs are successfully rerouted. Moreover, the selection of several small LSPs may not imply preempting much more than the required bandwidth (resulting in low-bandwidth wastage), as it will be seen in the discussed examples. When preemption is to happen in a heavy loaded portion of the network, to minimize blocking probability, the heuristic will select fewer LSPs for preemption in order to increase the chance of rerouting. H is calculated for each LSP in L. The LSPs to be preempted are chosen as the ones with smaller H that add enough bandwidth to accommodate r. When sorting LSPs by H, LSPs with the same value for H are ordered by bandwidth b, in increasing order. For each LSP with repeated H, the algorithm checks whether the bandwidth b assigned to only that LSP is enough to satisfy r. If there is no such LSP, it checks whether the bandwidth of each of those LSPs added to the previously preempted LSPs' bandwidth is enough to satisfy r. If that is not true for any LSP in that repeated H-value sequence, the algorithm preempts the LSP that has the larger amount of bandwidth in the sequence, and keeps preempting in decreasing order of b until r is satisfied or the sequence is finished. If the sequence is finished and r is not satisfied, the algorithm again selects LSPs to be preempted based on an increasing order of H. More details on the algorithm are given in [PREEMPTION]. When the objective is to minimize blocking, the heuristic will follow two options on how to calculate H: * If the link in which preemption is to happen is normally loaded, several small LSPs will be selected for preemption using H(l)= alpha y(l) + theta b(l). * If the link is overloaded, few LSPs are selected using H(l)= alpha y(l) + beta 1/b(l). de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 6. Examples 6.1. Simple Case: Single Link We first consider a very simple case, in which the path considered for preemption is composed by a single hop. The objective of this example is to illustrate how the heuristic works. In the next section, we will study a more complex case in which the preemption policies are being tested on a network. Consider a link with 16 LSPs with reserved bandwidth b in Mbps, preemption holding priority p, and cost y, as shown in Table 1. In this example, 8 TE-Classes are active. The preemption here is being performed on a single link as an illustrative example. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LSP L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bandwidth (b) 20 10 60 25 20 1 75 45 Priority (p) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Cost (y) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ LSP L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bandwidth (b) 100 5 40 85 50 20 70 25 Priority (p) 3 6 4 5 2 3 4 7 Cost (y) 5 2 4 3 6 5 4 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 1: LSPs in the considered link. A request for an LSP establishment arrives with r=175 Mbps and p=0 (highest possible priority, which implies that all LSPs with p>0 in Table 1 will be considered when running the algorithm). Assume Abw(l)=0. If priority is the only important criterion, the network operator configures alpha=1, beta=gamma=theta=0. In this case, LSPs L6, L7, L10, L12, and L16 are selected for preemption, freeing 191 bandwidth units to establish the high-priority LSP. Note that 5 LSPs were preempted, but all with a priority level between 5 and 7. In a network in which rerouting is an expensive task to perform (and the number of rerouted TE LSPs should be as small as possible), one might prefer to set beta=1 and alpha=gamma=theta=0. LSPs L9 and L12 would then be selected for preemption, adding up to 185 bandwidth units (less wastage than the previous case). The priorities of the selected LSPs are 3 and 5 (which means that they might themselves preempt some other LSPs when rerouted). de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 Suppose the network operator decides that it is more appropriate to configure alpha=1, beta=10, gamma=0, theta=0 (the parameters were set to values that would balance the weight of each component, namely priority and number, in the cost function), because in this network rerouting is very expensive, LSP priority is important, but bandwidth is not a critical issue. In this case, LSPs L7, L12, and L16 are selected for preemption. This configuration results in a smaller number of preempted LSPs when compared to the first case, and the priority levels are kept between 5 and 7. To take into account the number of LSPs preempted, the preemption priority, and the amount of bandwidth preempted, the network operator may set alpha > 0, beta > 0, and gamma > 0. To achieve a balance among the three components, the parameters need to be normalized. Aiming for a balance, the parameters could be set as alpha=1, beta=10 (bringing the term 1/b(l) closer to the other parameters), and gamma=0.001 (bringing the value of the term (b(l)-r)^2 closer to the other parameters). LSPs L7 and L9 are selected for preemption, resulting in exactly 175 bandwidth units and with priorities 3 and 7 (note that less LSP are preempted but they have a higher priority which may result in a cascading effect). If the minimization of the blocking probability is the criterion of most interest, the cost function could be configured with theta=1, alpha=beta=gamma=0. In that case, several small LSPs are selected for preemption: LSPs L2, L4, L5, L6, L7, L10, L14, and L16. Their preemption will free 181 Mbps in this link, and because the selected LSPs have small bandwidth requirement there is a good chance that each of them will find a new route in the network. From the above example, it can be observed that when the priority was the highest concern and the number of preempted LSPs was not an issue, 5 LSPs with the lowest priority were selected for preemption. When only the number of LSPs was an issue, the minimum number of LSPs was selected for preemption: 2, but the priority was higher than in the previous case. When priority and number were important factors and a possible waste of bandwidth was not an issue, 3 LSPs were selected, adding more bandwidth than requested, but still with low preemption priority. When considering all the parameters but the blocking probability, the smallest set of LSP was selected, 2, adding just enough bandwidth, 175 Mbps, and with priority levels 3 and 7. When the blocking probability was the criterion of interest, several (8) small LSPs were preempted. The bandwidth wastage is low, but the number of rerouting events will increase. Given the bandwidth requirement of the preempted LSPs, it is expected that the chances of finding a new route for each LSP will be high. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 6.2. Network Case For these experiments, we consider a 150 nodes topology with an average network connectivity of 3. 10% of the nodes in the topology have a degree of connectivity of 6. 10% of the links are OC3, 70% are OC48, and 20% are OC192. Two classes of TE LSPs are in use: Voice LSPs and Data Internet/VPN LSPs. For each class of TE LSP, the set of preemptions (and the proportion of LSPs for each preemption) and the size distributions are as follows (a total of T LSPs is considered): T: total number of TE LSPs in the network (T = 18,306 LSPs) Voice: Number: 20% of T Preemption: 0, 1 and 2 Size: uniform distribution between 30M and 50M Internet/VPN TE: Number: 4% of T Preemption: 3 Size: uniform distribution between 20M and 50M Number: 8% of T Preemption 4 Size: uniform distribution between 15M and 40M Number: 8% of T Preemption 5 Size: uniform distribution between 10M and 20M Number: 20% of T Preemption 6 Size: uniform distribution between 1M and 20M Number: 40% of T Preemption 7 Size: uniform distribution between 1K and 1M LSPs are set up mainly due to network failure: a link or a node failed and LSPs are rerouted. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 The network failure events were simulated with two functions: - Constant: 1 failure chosen randomly among the set of links every 1 hour. - Poisson process with interarrival average = 1 hour. Table 2 shows the results for simulations with constant failure. The simulations were run with the preemption heuristic configured to balance different criteria (left side of the table), and then with different preemption policies that consider the criteria in a given order of importance rather than balancing them (right side of the table). The proposed heuristic was configured to balance the following criteria: HPB: The heuristic with priority and bandwidth wastage as the most important criteria (alpha=10, beta=0, gamma=0.001, theta=0). HBlock: The heuristic considering the minimization of blocking probability (normal load links: alpha=1, beta=0, gamma=0, theta=0.01) (heavy load links: alpha=1, beta=10). HNB: The heuristic with number of preemptions and wasted bandwidth in consideration (alpha=0, beta=10, gamma=0.001, theta=0). Other algorithms that consider the criteria in a given order of importance: P: Sorts candidate LSPs by priority only. PN: Sorts the LSPs by priority, and for cases in which the priority is the same, orders those LSPs by decreasing bandwidth (selects larger LSPs for preemption in order to minimize number of preempted LSPs). PB: Sorts the LSPs by priority, and for LSPs with the same priority, sorts those by increasing bandwidth (select smaller LSPs in order to reduce bandwidth wastage). de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 ------------------------------------------------- | Heuristic | Other algorithms | ------------------------------------------------- | HPB | HBlock| HNB | P | PN | PB | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Need to be | 532 | 532 | 532 | 532 | 532 | 532 | Rerouted | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Preempted | 612 | 483 | 619 | 504 | 477 | 598 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rerouted |467|76%|341|73%|475|77%|347|69%|335|70%|436|73%| Blocked |145|24%|130|27%|144|23%|157|31%|142|30%|162|27%| ----------------------------------------------------------------- Max Cascading | 4.5 | 2 | 5 | 2.75 | 2 | 2.75 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wasted Bandwidth| | | | | | | AVR (Mbps) | 6638 | 532 | 6479 | 8247 | 8955 | 6832 | Worst Case(Mbps)| 35321 |26010 |36809 | 28501 | 31406 | 23449 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Priority | | | | | | | Average | 6 | 6.5 | 5.8 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 6.6 | Worst Case | 1.5 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Extra Hops | | | | | | | Average | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.23 | Worst Case | 3.25 | 3 | 3.25 | 3 | 3 | 2.75 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2: Simulation results for constant network failure: 1 random failure every hour. From Table 2, we can conclude that among the heuristic (HPB, HBlock, HNB) results, HBlock resulted in the smaller number of LSPs being preempted. More importantly, it also resulted in an overall smaller rejection rate and smaller average wasted bandwidth (and second overall smaller worst-case wasted bandwidth.) Although HBlock does not try to minimize the number of preempted LSPs, it ends up doing so, because it preempts LSPs with lower priority mostly, and therefore it does not propagate cascading much further. Cascading was the overall lowest (preemption caused at most two levels of preemption, which was also the case for the policy PN). The average and worst preemption priority was very satisfactory (preempting mostly lowest-priority LSPs, like the other algorithms P, PN, and PB). When HPB was in use, more LSPs were preempted as a consequence of the higher cascading effect. That is due to the heuristic's choice of preempting LSPs that are very similar in bandwidth size to the de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 bandwidth size of the preemptor LSP (which can result in preempting a higher priority LSP and therefore causing cascading). The wasted bandwidth was reduced when compared to the other algorithms (P, PN, PB). When HNB was used, cascading was higher than the other cases, due to the fact that LSPs with higher priority could be preempted. When compared to P, PN, or PB, the heuristic HNB preempted more LSPs (in fact, it preempted the largest number of LSPs overall, clearly showing the cascading effect), but the average wasted bandwidth was smaller, although not as small as HBlock's (the HNB heuristic tries to preempt a single LSP, meaning it will preempt LSPs that have a reserved bandwidth similar to the actual bandwidth needed. The algorithm is not always successful, because such a match may not exist, and in that case, the wasted bandwidth could be high). The preempted priority was the highest on average and worse case, which also shows why the cascading level was also the highest (the heuristic tries to select LSPs for preemption without looking at their priority levels). In summary, this policy resulted in a poor performance. Policy PN resulted in the small number of preempted LSPs overall and small number of LSPs not successfully rerouted. Cascading is low, but bandwidth wastage is very high (overall highest bandwidth wastage). Moreover, in several cases in which rerouting happened on portions of the network that were underloaded, the heuristic HBlock preempted a smaller number of LSPs than PN. Policy P selects a larger number of LSPs (when compared to PN) with low priority for preemption, and therefore it is able to successfully reroute less LSPs when compared to HBlock, HPB, HNB, or PN. The bandwidth wastage is also higher when compared to any of the heuristic results or to PB, and it could be worse if the network had LSPs with a low priority and large bandwidth, which is not the case. Policy PB, when compared to PN, resulted in a larger number of preempted LSPs and an overall larger number of blocked LSPs (not rerouted), due to preemption. Cascading was slightly higher. Since the selected LSPs have low priority, they are not able to preempt much further and are blocked when the links are congested. Bandwidth wastage was smaller since the policy tries to minimize wastage, and preempted priority was about the same on average and worst case. The simulation results show that when preemption is based on priority, cascading is not critical since the preempted LSPs will not be able to propagate preemption much further. When the number of LSPs is considered, fewer LSPs are preempted and the chances of rerouting increases. When bandwidth wastage is considered, smaller de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 LSPs are preempted in each link and the wasted bandwidth is low. The heuristic seems to combine these features, yielding the best results, especially in the case of blocking probability. When the heuristic was configured to minimize blocking probability (HBlock), small LSPs with low priority were selected for preemption on normally loaded links and fewer (larger) LSPs with low priority were selected on congested links. Due to their low priority, cascading was not an issue. Several LSPs were selected for preemption, but the rate of LSPs that were not successfully rerouted was the lowest. Since the LSPs are small, it is easier to find a new route in the network. When selecting LSPs on a congested link, fewer larger LSPs are selected improving load balance. Moreover, the bandwidth wastage was the overall lowest. In summary, the heuristic is very flexible and can be configured according to the network provider's best interest regarding the considered criteria. For several cases, the failure of a link resulted in no preemption at all (all LSPs were able to find an alternate path in the network) or resulted in preemption of very few LSPs and subsequent successfully rerouting of the same with no cascading effect. It is also important to note that for all policies in use, the number of extra hops when LSPs are rerouted was not critical, showing that preempted LSPs can be rerouted on a path with the same length or a path that is slightly longer in number of hops. 7. Security Considerations The practice described in this document does not raise specific security issues beyond those of existing TE. 8. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the input and helpful comments from Francois Le Faucheur (Cisco Systems) and George Uhl (Swales Aerospace). de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 9. Informative References [ATM-PREP] Poretsky, S. and Gannon, T., "An Algorithm for Connection Precedence and Preemption in Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) Networks", Proceedings of IEEE ICC 1998. [DEC-PREP] Peyravian, M. and Kshemkalyani, A. D. , "Decentralized Network Connection Preemption Algorithms", Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 30 (11), pp. 1029-1043, June 1998. [PREEMPTION] de Oliveira, J. C. et al., "A New Preemption Policy for DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering to Minimize Rerouting", Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2002. [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", RFC 2702, September 1999. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X. Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering", RFC 3272, May 2002. [RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 3564, July 2003. [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June 2005. [RFC4126] Ash, J., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering & Performance Comparisons", RFC 4126, June 2005. [RFC4127] Le Faucheur, F., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4127, June 2005. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 [RFC4128] Lai, W., "Bandwidth Constraints Models for Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering: Performance Evaluation", RFC 4128, June 2005. Authors' Addresses Jaudelice C. de Oliveira (editor) Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street (ECE Dept.) Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA EMail: jau@ece.drexel.edu JP Vasseur (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 USA EMail: jpv@cisco.com Leonardo Chen Verizon Laboratories 40 Sylvan Rd. LA0MS55 Waltham, MA 02451 USA EMail: leonardo.c.chen@verizon.com Caterina Scoglio Kansas State University 2061 Rathbone Hall Manhattan, Kansas 66506-5204 USA EMail: caterina@eece.ksu.edu de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 4829 LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS-TE April 2007 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. de Oliveira, et al. Informational [Page 19]

   

[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.