💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc8370.txt captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) V. Beeram, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8370 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track I. Minei
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Shakir
Google, Inc
D. Pacella
Verizon
T. Saad
Cisco Systems
May 2018
Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE Deployments
Abstract
Networks that utilize RSVP-TE LSPs are encountering implementations
that have a limited ability to support the growth in the number of
LSPs deployed.
This document defines two techniques, Refresh-Interval Independent
RSVP (RI-RSVP) and Per-Peer Flow Control, that reduce the number of
processing cycles required to maintain RSVP-TE LSP state in Label
Switching Routers (LSRs) and hence allow implementations to support
larger scale deployments.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8370.
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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. Required Support for RFC 2961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Required Functionality from RFC 2961 . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Making Acknowledgements Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Per-Peer Flow Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Capability Object Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Recommended Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
1. Introduction
Networks that utilize RSVP-TE [RFC3209] LSPs are encountering
implementations that have a limited ability to support the growth in
the number of LSPs deployed.
The set of RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction procedures [RFC2961]
serves as a powerful toolkit for RSVP-TE implementations to help
cover a majority of the concerns about soft-state scaling. However,
even with these tools in the toolkit, analysis of existing
implementations [RFC5439] indicates that the processing required
beyond a certain scale may still cause significant disruption to a
Label Switching Router (LSR).
This document builds on existing scaling work and analysis and
defines protocol extensions to help RSVP-TE deployments push the
envelope further on scaling by increasing the threshold above which
an LSR struggles to achieve sufficient processing to maintain LSP
state.
This document defines two techniques, Refresh-Interval Independent
RSVP (RI-RSVP) and Per-Peer Flow Control, that cut down the number of
processing cycles required to maintain LSP state. RI-RSVP helps
completely eliminate RSVP's reliance on refreshes and refresh
timeouts, while Per-Peer Flow Control enables a busy RSVP speaker to
apply back pressure to its peer(s). This document defines a unique
RSVP Capability [RFC5063] for each technique (support for the
CAPABILITY object is a prerequisite for implementing these
techniques). Note that the Per-Peer Flow-Control technique requires
the RI-RSVP technique as a prerequisite. In order to reap maximum
scaling benefits, it is strongly recommended that implementations
support both techniques and have them enabled by default. Both
techniques are fully backward compatible and can be deployed
incrementally.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
2. Required Support for RFC 2961
The techniques defined in Sections 3 and 4 are based on proposals
made in [RFC2961]. Implementations of these techniques need to
support the RSVP messages and procedures defined in [RFC2961] with
some minor modifications and alterations to recommended time
intervals and iteration counts (see Appendix A for the set of
recommended defaults).
2.1. Required Functionality from RFC 2961
An implementation that supports the techniques discussed in Sections
3 and 4 must support the functionality described in [RFC2961] as
follows:
o It MUST indicate support for RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
extensions (as specified in Section 2 of [RFC2961]).
o It MUST support receipt of any RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
message as defined in [RFC2961].
o It MUST initiate all RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction mechanisms as
defined in [RFC2961] (including the SRefresh message) with the
default behavior being to initiate the mechanisms; however, a
configuration override should be offered.
o It MUST support reliable delivery of Path/Resv and the
corresponding Tear/Err messages (as specified in Section 4 of
[RFC2961]).
o It MUST support retransmission of all unacknowledged RSVP-TE
messages using exponential backoff (as specified in Section 6 of
[RFC2961]).
2.2. Making Acknowledgements Mandatory
The reliable message delivery mechanism specified in [RFC2961] states
that "Nodes receiving a non-out of order [sic] message containing a
MESSAGE_ID object with the ACK_Desired flag set, SHOULD respond with
a MESSAGE_ID_ACK object."
In an implementation that supports the techniques discussed in
Sections 3 and 4, nodes receiving a non-out-of-order message
containing a MESSAGE_ID object with the ACK_Desired flag set MUST
respond with a MESSAGE_ID_ACK object. This MESSAGE_ID_ACK object can
be packed with other MESSAGE_ID_ACK or MESSAGE_ID_NACK objects and
sent in an Ack message (or piggybacked in any other RSVP message).
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
This improvement to the predictability of the system in terms of
reliable message delivery is key for being able to take any action
based on a non-receipt of an ACK.
3. Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP)
The RSVP protocol relies on periodic refreshes for state
synchronization between RSVP neighbors and recovery from lost RSVP
messages. It relies on a refresh timeout for stale-state cleanup.
The primary motivation behind introducing the notion of Refresh-
Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) is to completely eliminate RSVP's
reliance on refreshes and refresh timeouts. This is done by simply
increasing the refresh interval to a fairly large value. [RFC2961]
and [RFC5439] talk about increasing the value of the refresh interval
to provide linear improvement of transmission overhead, but they also
point out the degree of functionality that is lost by doing so. This
section revisits this notion, but also sets out additional
requirements to make sure that there is no loss of functionality
incurred by increasing the value of the refresh interval.
An implementation that supports RI-RSVP:
o MUST support all of the requirements specified in Section 2.
o MUST make the default value of the configurable refresh interval
(R) be a large value (tens of minutes). A default value of 20
minutes is RECOMMENDED by this document.
o MUST use a separate shorter refresh interval for refreshing state
associated with unacknowledged Path/Resv (uR) messages. A default
value of 30 seconds is RECOMMENDED by this document.
o MUST implement coupling the state of individual LSPs with the
state of the corresponding RSVP-TE signaling adjacency. When an
RSVP-TE speaker detects RSVP-TE signaling adjacency failure, the
speaker MUST act as if all the Path and Resv states learned via
the failed signaling adjacency have timed out.
o MUST make use of the Hello session based on the Node-ID ([RFC3209]
[RFC4558]) for detection of RSVP-TE signaling adjacency failures.
A default value of 9 seconds is RECOMMENDED by this document for
the configurable node hello interval (as opposed to the default
value of 5 milliseconds proposed in Section 5.3 of [RFC3209]).
o MUST indicate support for RI-RSVP via the CAPABILITY object
[RFC5063] in Hello messages.
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
3.1. Capability Advertisement
An implementation supporting the RI-RSVP technique MUST set a new
flag, RI-RSVP Capable, in the CAPABILITY object signaled in Hello
messages. The following bit indicates that the sender supports
RI-RSVP:
Bit Number 28 (0x0008) - RI-RSVP Capable (I-bit)
Any node that sets the new I-bit in its CAPABILITY object MUST also
set the Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit [RFC2961] in the common header
of all RSVP-TE messages. If a peer sets the I-bit in the CAPABILITY
object but does not set the Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit, then the
RI-RSVP functionality MUST NOT be activated for that peer.
3.2. Compatibility
The RI-RSVP functionality MUST NOT be activated with a peer that does
not indicate support for this functionality. Inactivation of the
RI-RSVP functionality MUST result in the use of the traditional
smaller refresh interval [RFC2205].
4. Per-Peer Flow Control
The functionality discussed in this section provides an RSVP speaker
with the ability to apply back pressure to its peer(s) to reduce/
eliminate a significant portion of the RSVP-TE control message load.
An implementation that supports Per-Peer Flow Control:
o MUST support all of the requirements specified in Section 2.
o MUST support RI-RSVP (Section 3).
o MUST treat lack of ACKs from a peer as an indication of a peer's
RSVP-TE control-plane congestion. If congestion is detected, the
local system MUST throttle RSVP-TE messages to the affected peer.
This MUST be done on a per-peer basis. (Per-peer throttling MAY
be implemented by a traffic-shaping mechanism that proportionally
reduces the RSVP-signaling packet rate as the number of
outstanding ACKs increases. When the number of outstanding ACKs
decreases, the send rate would be adjusted up again.)
o SHOULD use a Retry Limit (Rl) value of 7 (Section 6.2 of [RFC2961]
suggests using 3).
o SHOULD prioritize Hello messages and messages carrying
Acknowledgements over other RSVP messages.
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
o SHOULD prioritize Tear/Error over trigger Path/Resv (messages that
bring up new LSP state) sent to a peer when the local system
detects RSVP-TE control-plane congestion in the peer.
o MUST indicate support for this technique via the CAPABILITY object
[RFC5063] in Hello messages.
4.1. Capability Advertisement
An implementation supporting the Per-Peer Flow-Control technique MUST
set a new flag, Per-Peer Flow-Control Capable, in the CAPABILITY
object signaled in Hello messages. The following bit indicates that
the sender supports Per-Peer Flow Control:
Bit Number 27 (0x0010) - Per-Peer Flow-Control Capable (F-bit)
Any node that sets the new F-bit in its CAPABILITY object MUST also
set the Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit in the common header of all
RSVP-TE messages. If a peer sets the F-bit in the CAPABILITY object
but does not set the Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit, then the Per-Peer
Flow-Control functionality MUST NOT be activated for that peer.
4.2. Compatibility
The Per-Peer Flow-Control functionality MUST NOT be activated with a
peer that does not indicate support for this functionality. If a
peer hasn't indicated that it is capable of participating in Per-Peer
Flow Control, then it SHOULD NOT be assumed that the peer would
always acknowledge a non-out-of-order message containing a MESSAGE_ID
object with the ACK_Desired flag set.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Capability Object Values
IANA maintains the "Capability Object values" subregistry [RFC5063]
within the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. IANA has assigned
two new Capability Object Value bit flags as follows:
Bit Hex Name Reference
Number Value
------------------------------------------------------------------
28 0x0008 RI-RSVP Capable (I) Section 3
27 0x0010 Per-Peer Flow-Control Capable (F) Section 4
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RFC2205] and
RSVP-TE [RFC3209], and those that are described in [RFC5920], remain
relevant.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F.,
and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2961>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4558] Ali, Z., Rahman, R., Prairie, D., and D. Papadimitriou,
"Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello:
A Clarification Statement", RFC 4558,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4558, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4558>.
[RFC5063] Satyanarayana, A., Ed. and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions to
GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
Restart", RFC 5063, DOI 10.17487/RFC5063, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5063>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
7.2. Informative References
[RFC5439] Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., and O. Komolafe, "An Analysis of
Scaling Issues in MPLS-TE Core Networks", RFC 5439,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5439, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5439>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
Appendix A. Recommended Defaults
a. Refresh Interval (R) - 20 minutes (Section 3):
Given that an implementation supporting RI-RSVP doesn't rely on
refreshes for state sync between peers, the function of the RSVP
refresh interval is analogous to that of IGP refresh interval
(the default of which is typically in the order of tens of
minutes). Choosing a default of 20 minutes allows the refresh
timer to be randomly set to a value in the range [10 minutes
(0.5R), 30 minutes (1.5R)].
b. Node Hello Interval - 9 seconds (Section 3):
[RFC3209] defines the hello timeout as 3.5 times the hello
interval. Choosing 9 seconds for the node hello interval gives a
hello timeout of 3.5 * 9 = 31.5 seconds. This puts the hello
timeout value in the vicinity of the IGP hello timeout value.
c. Retry-Limit (Rl) - 7 (Section 4):
Choosing 7 as the retry-limit results in an overall rapid
retransmit phase of 31.5 seconds. This matches up with the hello
timeout of 31.5 seconds.
d. Refresh Interval for refreshing state associated with
unacknowledged Path/Resv messages (uR) - 30 seconds (Section 3):
The recommended refresh interval (R) value of 20 minutes (for an
implementation supporting RI-RSVP) cannot be used for refreshing
state associated with unacknowledged Path/Resv messages. This
document recommends the use of the traditional default refresh
interval value of 30 seconds for uR.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for initiating this
work and providing valuable input. They would like to thank
Raveendra Torvi and Chandra Ramachandran for participating in the
many discussions that led to the techniques discussed in this
document. They would also like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger,
and Elwyn Davies for providing detailed review comments and text
suggestions.
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8370 RSVP-TE Scaling - Techniques May 2018
Contributors
Markus Jork
Juniper Networks
Email: mjork@juniper.net
Ebben Aries
Juniper Networks
Email: exa@juniper.net
Authors' Addresses
Vishnu Pavan Beeram (editor)
Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Ina Minei
Google, Inc
Email: inaminei@google.com
Rob Shakir
Google, Inc
Email: rjs@rob.sh
Dante Pacella
Verizon
Email: dante.j.pacella@verizon.com
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems
Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Beeram, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]