💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc7424.gmi captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:38:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Krishnan
Request for Comments: 7424 Brocade Communications
Category: Informational L. Yong
ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei USA
A. Ghanwani
Dell
N. So
Vinci Systems
B. Khasnabish
ZTE Corporation
January 2015
Mechanisms for Optimizing Link Aggregation Group (LAG) and
Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Component Link Utilization in Networks
Abstract
Demands on networking infrastructure are growing exponentially due to
bandwidth-hungry applications such as rich media applications and
inter-data-center communications. In this context, it is important
to optimally use the bandwidth in wired networks that extensively use
link aggregation groups and equal-cost multipaths as techniques for
bandwidth scaling. This document explores some of the mechanisms
useful for achieving this.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7424.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://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.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. Acronyms ...................................................4
1.2. Terminology ................................................5
2. Flow Categorization .............................................6
3. Hash-Based Load Distribution in LAG/ECMP ........................6
4. Mechanisms for Optimizing LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization ...8
4.1. Differences in LAG vs. ECMP ................................9
4.2. Operational Overview ......................................10
4.3. Large Flow Recognition ....................................11
4.3.1. Flow Identification ................................11
4.3.2. Criteria and Techniques for Large Flow
Recognition ........................................12
4.3.3. Sampling Techniques ................................12
4.3.4. Inline Data Path Measurement .......................14
4.3.5. Use of Multiple Methods for Large Flow
Recognition ........................................15
4.4. Options for Load Rebalancing ..............................15
4.4.1. Alternative Placement of Large Flows ...............15
4.4.2. Redistributing Small Flows .........................16
4.4.3. Component Link Protection Considerations ...........16
4.4.4. Algorithms for Load Rebalancing ....................17
4.4.5. Example of Load Rebalancing ........................17
5. Information Model for Flow Rebalancing .........................18
5.1. Configuration Parameters for Flow Rebalancing .............18
5.2. System Configuration and Identification Parameters ........19
5.3. Information for Alternative Placement of Large Flows ......20
5.4. Information for Redistribution of Small Flows .............21
5.5. Export of Flow Information ................................21
5.6. Monitoring Information ....................................21
5.6.1. Interface (Link) Utilization .......................21
5.6.2. Other Monitoring Information .......................22
6. Operational Considerations .....................................23
6.1. Rebalancing Frequency .....................................23
6.2. Handling Route Changes ....................................23
6.3. Forwarding Resources ......................................23
7. Security Considerations ........................................23
8. References .....................................................24
8.1. Normative References ......................................24
8.2. Informative References ....................................25
Appendix A. Internet Traffic Analysis and Load-Balancing
Simulation ...........................................28
Acknowledgements ..................................................28
Contributors ......................................................28
Authors' Addresses ................................................29
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
1. Introduction
Networks extensively use link aggregation groups (LAGs) [802.1AX] and
equal-cost multipaths (ECMPs) [RFC2991] as techniques for capacity
scaling. For the problems addressed by this document, network
traffic can be predominantly categorized into two traffic types:
long-lived large flows and other flows. These other flows, which
include long-lived small flows, short-lived small flows, and short-
lived large flows, are referred to as "small flows" in this document.
Long-lived large flows are simply referred to as "large flows".
Stateless hash-based techniques [ITCOM] [RFC2991] [RFC2992] [RFC6790]
are often used to distribute both large flows and small flows over
the component links in a LAG/ECMP. However, the traffic may not be
evenly distributed over the component links due to the traffic
pattern.
This document describes mechanisms for optimizing LAG/ECMP component
link utilization when using hash-based techniques. The mechanisms
comprise the following steps: 1) recognizing large flows in a router,
and 2) assigning the large flows to specific LAG/ECMP component links
or redistributing the small flows when a component link on the router
is congested.
It is useful to keep in mind that in typical use cases for these
mechanisms, the large flows consume a significant amount of bandwidth
on a link, e.g., greater than 5% of link bandwidth. The number of
such flows would necessarily be fairly small, e.g., on the order of
10s or 100s per LAG/ECMP. In other words, the number of large flows
is NOT expected to be on the order of millions of flows. Examples of
such large flows would be IPsec tunnels in service provider backbone
networks or storage backup traffic in data center networks.
1.1. Acronyms
DoS: Denial of Service
ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath
GRE: Generic Routing Encapsulation
IPFIX: IP Flow Information Export
LAG: Link Aggregation Group
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
NVGRE: Network Virtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
PBR: Policy-Based Routing
QoS: Quality of Service
STT: Stateless Transport Tunneling
VXLAN: Virtual eXtensible LAN
1.2. Terminology
Central management entity:
An entity that is capable of monitoring information about link
utilization and flows in routers across the network and may be
capable of making traffic-engineering decisions for placement of
large flows. It may include the functions of a collector
[RFC7011].
ECMP component link:
An individual next hop within an ECMP group. An ECMP component
link may itself comprise a LAG.
ECMP table:
A table that is used as the next hop of an ECMP route that
comprises the set of ECMP component links and the weights
associated with each of those ECMP component links. The input for
looking up the table is the hash value for the packet, and the
weights are used to determine which values of the hash function
map to a given ECMP component link.
Flow (large or small):
A sequence of packets for which ordered delivery should be
maintained, e.g., packets belonging to the same TCP connection.
LAG component link:
An individual link within a LAG. A LAG component link is
typically a physical link.
LAG table:
A table that is used as the output port, which is a LAG, that
comprises the set of LAG component links and the weights
associated with each of those component links. The input for
looking up the table is the hash value for the packet, and the
weights are used to determine which values of the hash function
map to a given LAG component link.
Large flow(s):
Refers to long-lived large flow(s).
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Small flow(s):
Refers to any of, or a combination of, long-lived small flow(s),
short-lived small flows, and short-lived large flow(s).
2. Flow Categorization
In general, based on the size and duration, a flow can be categorized
into any one of the following four types, as shown in Figure 1:
o short-lived large flow (SLLF),
o short-lived small flow (SLSF),
o long-lived large flow (LLLF), and
o long-lived small flow (LLSF).
Flow Bandwidth
^
|--------------------|--------------------|
| | |
Large | SLLF | LLLF |
Flow | | |
|--------------------|--------------------|
| | |
Small | SLSF | LLSF |
Flow | | |
+--------------------+--------------------+-->Flow Duration
Short-Lived Long-Lived
Flow Flow
Figure 1: Flow Categorization
In this document, as mentioned earlier, we categorize long-lived
large flows as "large flows", and all of the others (long-lived small
flows, short-lived small flows, and short-lived large flows) as
"small flows".
3. Hash-Based Load Distribution in LAG/ECMP
Hash-based techniques are often used for load balancing of traffic to
select among multiple available paths within a LAG/ECMP group. The
advantages of hash-based techniques for load distribution are the
preservation of the packet sequence in a flow and the real-time
distribution without maintaining per-flow state in the router. Hash-
based techniques use a combination of fields in the packet's headers
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
to identify a flow, and the hash function computed using these fields
is used to generate a unique number that identifies a link/path in a
LAG/ECMP group. The result of the hashing procedure is a many-to-one
mapping of flows to component links.
Hash-based techniques produce good results with respect to
utilization of the individual component links if:
o the traffic mix constitutes flows such that the result of the hash
function across these flows is fairly uniform so that a similar
number of flows is mapped to each component link,
o the individual flow rates are much smaller as compared to the link
capacity, and
o the differences in flow rates are not dramatic.
However, if one or more of these conditions are not met, hash-based
techniques may result in imbalance in the loads on individual
component links.
An example is illustrated in Figure 2. As shown, there are two
routers, R1 and R2, and there is a LAG between them that has three
component links (1), (2), and (3). A total of ten flows need to be
distributed across the links in this LAG. The result of applying the
hash-based technique is as follows:
o Component link (1) has three flows (two small flows and one large
flow), and the link utilization is normal.
o Component link (2) has three flows (three small flows and no large
flows), and the link utilization is light.
- The absence of any large flow causes the component link to be
underutilized.
o Component link (3) has four flows (two small flows and two large
flows), and the link capacity is exceeded resulting in congestion.
- The presence of two large flows causes congestion on this
component link.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
+-----------+ -> +-----------+
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| (1)|--------|(1) |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| (R1) | -> | (R2) |
| (2)|--------|(2) |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| | ===> | |
| (3)|--------|(3) |
| | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+
Where: -> small flow
===> large flow
Figure 2: Unevenly Utilized Component Links
This document presents mechanisms for addressing the imbalance in
load distribution resulting from commonly used hash-based techniques
for LAG/ECMP that are shown in the above example. The mechanisms use
large flow awareness to compensate for the imbalance in load
distribution.
4. Mechanisms for Optimizing LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization
The suggested mechanisms in this document are local optimization
solutions; they are local in the sense that both the identification
of large flows and rebalancing of the load can be accomplished
completely within individual routers in the network without the need
for interaction with other routers.
This approach may not yield a global optimization of the placement of
large flows across multiple routers in a network, which may be
desirable in some networks. On the other hand, a local approach may
be adequate for some environments for the following reasons:
1) Different links within a network experience different levels of
utilization; thus, a "targeted" solution is needed for those hot
spots in the network. An example is the utilization of a LAG
between two routers that needs to be optimized.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
2) Some networks may lack end-to-end visibility, e.g., when a
certain network, under the control of a given operator, is a
transit network for traffic from other networks that are not
under the control of the same operator.
4.1. Differences in LAG vs. ECMP
While the mechanisms explained herein are applicable to both LAGs and
ECMP groups, it is useful to note that there are some key differences
between the two that may impact how effective the mechanisms are.
This relates, in part, to the localized information with which the
mechanisms are intended to operate.
A LAG is usually established across links that are between two
adjacent routers. As a result, the scope of the problem of
optimizing the bandwidth utilization on the component links is fairly
narrow. It simply involves rebalancing the load across the component
links between these two routers, and there is no impact whatsoever to
other parts of the network. The scheme works equally well for
unicast and multicast flows.
On the other hand, with ECMP, redistributing the load across
component links that are part of the ECMP group may impact traffic
patterns at all of the routers that are downstream of the given
router between itself and the destination. The local optimization
may result in congestion at a downstream node. (In its simplest
form, an ECMP group may be used to distribute traffic on component
links that are between two adjacent routers, and in that case, the
ECMP group is no different than a LAG for the purpose of this
discussion. It should be noted that an ECMP component link may
itself comprise a LAG, in which case the scheme may be further
applied to the component links within the LAG.)
To demonstrate the limitations of local optimization, consider a two-
level Clos network topology as shown in Figure 3 with three leaf
routers (L1, L2, and L3) and two spine routers (S1 and S2). Assume
all of the links are 10 Gbps.
Let L1 have two flows of 4 Gbps each towards L3, and let L2 have one
flow of 7 Gbps also towards L3. If L1 balances the load optimally
between S1 and S2, and L2 sends the flow via S1, then the downlink
from S1 to L3 would get congested, resulting in packet discards. On
the other hand, if L1 had sent both its flows towards S1 and L2 had
sent its flow towards S2, there would have been no congestion at
either S1 or S2.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
+-----+ +-----+
| S1 | | S2 |
+-----+ +-----+
/ \ \ / /\
/ +---------+ / \
/ / \ \ / \
/ / \ +------+ \
/ / \ / \ \
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| L1 | | L2 | | L3 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 3: Two-Level Clos Network
The other issue with applying this scheme to ECMP groups is that it
may not apply equally to unicast and multicast traffic because of the
way multicast trees are constructed.
Finally, it is possible for a single physical link to participate as
a component link in multiple ECMP groups, whereas with LAGs, a link
can participate as a component link of only one LAG.
4.2. Operational Overview
The various steps in optimizing LAG/ECMP component link utilization
in networks are detailed below:
Step 1:
This step involves recognizing large flows in routers and
maintaining the mapping for each large flow to the component link
that it uses. Recognition of large flows is explained in Section
4.3.
Step 2:
The egress component links are periodically scanned for link
utilization, and the imbalance for the LAG/ECMP group is
monitored. If the imbalance exceeds a certain threshold, then
rebalancing is triggered. Measurement of the imbalance is
discussed further in Section 5.1. In addition to the imbalance,
further criteria (such as the maximum utilization of any of the
component links) may also be used to determine whether or not to
trigger rebalancing. The use of sampling techniques for the
measurement of egress component link utilization, including the
issues of depending on ingress sampling for these measurements,
are discussed in Section 4.3.3.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Step 3:
As a part of rebalancing, the operator can choose to rebalance the
large flows by placing them on lightly loaded component links of
the LAG/ECMP group, redistribute the small flows on the congested
link to other component links of the group, or a combination of
both.
All of the steps identified above can be done locally within the
router itself or could involve the use of a central management
entity.
Providing large flow information to a central management entity
provides the capability to globally optimize flow distribution as
described in Section 4.1. Consider the following example. A router
may have three ECMP next hops that lead down paths P1, P2, and P3. A
couple of hops downstream on path P1, there may be a congested link,
while paths P2 and P3 may be underutilized. This is something that
the local router does not have visibility into. With the help of a
central management entity, the operator could redistribute some of
the flows from P1 to P2 and/or P3, resulting in a more optimized flow
of traffic.
The steps described above are especially useful when bundling links
of different bandwidths, e.g., 10 Gbps and 100 Gbps as described in
[RFC7226].
4.3. Large Flow Recognition
4.3.1. Flow Identification
Flows are typically identified using one or more fields from the
packet header, for example:
o Layer 2: Source Media Access Control (MAC) address, destination
MAC address, VLAN ID.
o IP header: IP protocol, IP source address, IP destination address,
flow label (IPv6 only).
o Transport protocol header: Source port number, destination port
number. These apply to protocols such as TCP, UDP, and the Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP).
o MPLS labels.
For tunneling protocols like Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
[RFC2784], Virtual eXtensible LAN (VXLAN) [RFC7348], Network
Virtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation (NVGRE) [NVGRE],
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Stateless Transport Tunneling (STT) [STT], Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol
(L2TP) [RFC3931], etc., flow identification is possible based on
inner and/or outer headers as well as fields introduced by the tunnel
header, as any or all such fields may be used for load balancing
decisions [RFC5640].
The above list is not exhaustive.
The mechanisms described in this document are agnostic to the fields
that are used for flow identification.
This method of flow identification is consistent with that of IPFIX
[RFC7011].
4.3.2. Criteria and Techniques for Large Flow Recognition
From the perspective of bandwidth and time duration, in order to
recognize large flows, we define an observation interval and measure
the bandwidth of the flow over that interval. A flow that exceeds a
certain minimum bandwidth threshold over that observation interval
would be considered a large flow.
The two parameters -- the observation interval and the minimum
bandwidth threshold over that observation interval -- should be
programmable to facilitate handling of different use cases and
traffic characteristics. For example, a flow that is at or above 10%
of link bandwidth for a time period of at least one second could be
declared a large flow [DEVOFLOW].
In order to avoid excessive churn in the rebalancing, once a flow has
been recognized as a large flow, it should continue to be recognized
as a large flow for as long as the traffic received during an
observation interval exceeds some fraction of the bandwidth
threshold, for example, 80% of the bandwidth threshold.
Various techniques to recognize a large flow are described in
Sections 4.3.3, 4.3.4, and 4.3.5.
4.3.3. Sampling Techniques
A number of routers support sampling techniques such as sFlow
[sFlow-v5] [sFlow-LAG], Packet Sampling (PSAMP) [RFC5475], and
NetFlow Sampling [RFC3954]. For the purpose of large flow
recognition, sampling needs to be enabled on all of the egress ports
in the router where such measurements are desired.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Using sFlow as an example, processing in an sFlow collector can
provide an approximate indication of the mapping of large flows to
each of the component links in each LAG/ECMP group. Assuming
sufficient control plane resources are available, it is possible to
implement this part of the collector function in the control plane of
the router to reduce dependence on a central management entity.
If egress sampling is not available, ingress sampling can suffice
since the central management entity used by the sampling technique
typically has visibility across multiple routers in a network and can
use the samples from an immediately downstream router to make
measurements for egress traffic at the local router.
The option of using ingress sampling for this purpose may not be
available if the downstream router is under the control of a
different operator or if the downstream device does not support
sampling.
Alternatively, since sampling techniques require that the sample be
annotated with the packet's egress port information, ingress sampling
may suffice. However, this means that sampling would have to be
enabled on all ports, rather than only on those ports where such
monitoring is desired. There is one situation in which this approach
may not work. If there are tunnels that originate from the given
router and if the resulting tunnel comprises the large flow, then
this cannot be deduced from ingress sampling at the given router.
Instead, for this scenario, if egress sampling is unavailable, then
ingress sampling from the downstream router must be used.
To illustrate the use of ingress versus egress sampling, we refer to
Figure 2. Since we are looking at rebalancing flows at R1, we would
need to enable egress sampling on ports (1), (2), and (3) on R1. If
egress sampling is not available and if R2 is also under the control
of the same administrator, enabling ingress sampling on R2's ports
(1), (2), and (3) would also work, but it would necessitate the
involvement of a central management entity in order for R1 to obtain
large flow information for each of its links. Finally, R1 can only
enable ingress sampling on all of its ports (not just the ports that
are part of the LAG/ECMP group being monitored), and that would
suffice if the sampling technique annotates the samples with the
egress port information.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
The advantages and disadvantages of sampling techniques are as
follows.
Advantages:
o Supported in most existing routers.
o Requires minimal router resources.
Disadvantage:
o In order to minimize the error inherent in sampling, there is a
minimum delay for the recognition time of large flows, and in the
time that it takes to react to this information.
With sampling, the detection of large flows can be done on the order
of one second [DEVOFLOW]. A discussion on determining the
appropriate sampling frequency is available in [SAMP-BASIC].
4.3.4. Inline Data Path Measurement
Implementations may perform recognition of large flows by performing
measurements on traffic in the data path of a router. Such an
approach would be expected to operate at the interface speed on every
interface, accounting for all packets processed by the data path of
the router. An example of such an approach is described in IPFIX
[RFC5470].
Using inline data path measurement, a faster and more accurate
indication of large flows mapped to each of the component links in a
LAG/ECMP group may be possible (as compared to the sampling-based
approach).
The advantages and disadvantages of inline data path measurement are
as follows:
Advantages:
o As link speeds get higher, sampling rates are typically reduced to
keep the number of samples manageable, which places a lower bound
on the detection time. With inline data path measurement, large
flows can be recognized in shorter windows on higher link speeds
since every packet is accounted for [NDTM].
o Inline data path measurement eliminates the potential dependence
on a central management entity for large flow recognition.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Disadvantage:
o Inline data path measurement is more resource intensive in terms
of the table sizes required for monitoring all flows.
As mentioned earlier, the observation interval for determining a
large flow and the bandwidth threshold for classifying a flow as a
large flow should be programmable parameters in a router.
The implementation details of inline data path measurement of large
flows is vendor dependent and beyond the scope of this document.
4.3.5. Use of Multiple Methods for Large Flow Recognition
It is possible that a router may have line cards that support a
sampling technique while other line cards support inline data path
measurement. As long as there is a way for the router to reliably
determine the mapping of large flows to component links of a LAG/ECMP
group, it is acceptable for the router to use more than one method
for large flow recognition.
If both methods are supported, inline data path measurement may be
preferable because of its speed of detection [FLOW-ACC].
4.4. Options for Load Rebalancing
The following subsections describe suggested techniques for load
balancing. Equipment vendors may implement more than one technique,
including those not described in this document, and allow the
operator to choose between them.
Note that regardless of the method used, perfect rebalancing of large
flows may not be possible since flows arrive and depart at different
times. Also, any flows that are moved from one component link to
another may experience momentary packet reordering.
4.4.1. Alternative Placement of Large Flows
Within a LAG/ECMP group, member component links with the least
average link utilization are identified. Some large flow(s) from the
heavily loaded component links are then moved to those lightly loaded
member component links using a PBR rule in the ingress processing
element(s) in the routers.
With this approach, only certain large flows are subjected to
momentary flow reordering.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Moving a large flow will increase the utilization of the link that it
is moved to, potentially once again creating an imbalance in the
utilization across the component links. Therefore, when moving a
large flow, care must be taken to account for the existing load and
the future load after the large flow has been moved. Further, the
appearance of new large flows may require a rearrangement of the
placement of existing flows.
Consider a case where there is a LAG compromising four 10 Gbps
component links and there are four large flows, each of 1 Gbps.
These flows are each placed on one of the component links.
Subsequently, a fifth large flow of 2 Gbps is recognized, and to
maintain equitable load distribution, it may require placement of one
of the existing 1 Gbps flow to a different component link. This
would still result in some imbalance in the utilization across the
component links.
4.4.2. Redistributing Small Flows
Some large flows may consume the entire bandwidth of the component
link(s). In this case, it would be desirable for the small flows to
not use the congested component link(s).
o The LAG/ECMP table is modified to include only non-congested
component link(s). Small flows hash into this table to be mapped
to a destination component link. Alternatively, if certain
component links are heavily loaded but not congested, the output
of the hash function can be adjusted to account for large flow
loading on each of the component links.
o The PBR rules for large flows (refer to Section 4.4.1) must have
strict precedence over the LAG/ECMP table lookup result.
This method works on some existing router hardware. The idea is to
prevent, or reduce the probability, that a small flow hashes into the
congested component link(s).
With this approach, the small flows that are moved would be subject
to reordering.
4.4.3. Component Link Protection Considerations
If desired, certain component links may be reserved for link
protection. These reserved component links are not used for any
flows in the absence of any failures. When there is a failure of one
or more component links, all the flows on the failed component
link(s) are moved to the reserved component link(s). The mapping
table of large flows to component links simply replaces the failed
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
component link with the reserved component link. Likewise, the
LAG/ECMP table replaces the failed component link with the reserved
component link.
4.4.4. Algorithms for Load Rebalancing
Specific algorithms for placement of large flows are out of the scope
of this document. One possibility is to formulate the problem for
large flow placement as the well-known bin-packing problem and make
use of the various heuristics that are available for that problem
[BIN-PACK].
4.4.5. Example of Load Rebalancing
Optimizing LAG/ECMP component utilization for the use case in Figure
2 is depicted below in Figure 4. The large flow rebalancing
explained in Section 4.4.1 is used. The improved link utilization is
as follows:
o Component link (1) has three flows (two small flows and one large
flow), and the link utilization is normal.
o Component link (2) has four flows (three small flows and one large
flow), and the link utilization is normal now.
o Component link (3) has three flows (two small flows and one large
flow), and the link utilization is normal now.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
+-----------+ -> +-----------+
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| (1)|--------|(1) |
| | | |
| | ===> | |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| (R1) | -> | (R2) |
| (2)|--------|(2) |
| | | |
| | -> | |
| | -> | |
| | ===> | |
| (3)|--------|(3) |
| | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+
Where: -> small flow
===> large flow
Figure 4: Evenly Utilized Composite Links
Basically, the use of the mechanisms described in Section 4.4.1
resulted in a rebalancing of flows where one of the large flows on
component link (3), which was previously congested, was moved to
component link (2), which was previously underutilized.
5. Information Model for Flow Rebalancing
In order to support flow rebalancing in a router from an external
system, the exchange of some information is necessary between the
router and the external system. This section provides an exemplary
information model covering the various components needed for this
purpose. The model is intended to be informational and may be used
as a guide for the development of a data model.
5.1. Configuration Parameters for Flow Rebalancing
The following parameters are required for configuration of this
feature:
o Large flow recognition parameters:
- Observation interval: The observation interval is the time
period in seconds over which packet arrivals are observed for
the purpose of large flow recognition.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
- Minimum bandwidth threshold: The minimum bandwidth threshold
would be configured as a percentage of link speed and
translated into a number of bytes over the observation
interval. A flow for which the number of bytes received over a
given observation interval exceeds this number would be
recognized as a large flow.
- Minimum bandwidth threshold for large flow maintenance: The
minimum bandwidth threshold for large flow maintenance is used
to provide hysteresis for large flow recognition. Once a flow
is recognized as a large flow, it continues to be recognized as
a large flow until it falls below this threshold. This is also
configured as a percentage of link speed and is typically lower
than the minimum bandwidth threshold defined above.
o Imbalance threshold: A measure of the deviation of the component
link utilizations from the utilization of the overall LAG/ECMP
group. Since component links can be different speeds, the
imbalance can be computed as follows. Let the utilization of each
component link in a LAG/ECMP group with n links of speed b_1, b_2
.. b_n be u_1, u_2 .. u_n. The mean utilization is computed as
u_ave = [ (u_1 * b_1) + (u_2 * b_2) + .. + (u_n * b_n) ] /
[b_1 + b_2 + .. + b_n].
The imbalance is then computed as
max_{i=1..n} | u_i - u_ave |.
o Rebalancing interval: The minimum amount of time between
rebalancing events. This parameter ensures that rebalancing is
not invoked too frequently as it impacts packet ordering.
These parameters may be configured on a system-wide basis or may
apply to an individual LAG/ECMP group. They may be applied to an
ECMP group, provided that the component links are not shared with any
other ECMP group.
5.2. System Configuration and Identification Parameters
The following parameters are useful for router configuration and
operation when using the mechanisms in this document.
o IP address: The IP address of a specific router that the feature
is being configured on or that the large flow placement is being
applied to.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
o LAG ID: Identifies the LAG on a given router. The LAG ID may be
required when configuring this feature (to apply a specific set of
large flow identification parameters to the LAG) and will be
required when specifying flow placement to achieve the desired
rebalancing.
o Component Link ID: Identifies the component link within a LAG or
ECMP group. This is required when specifying flow placement to
achieve the desired rebalancing.
o Component Link Weight: The relative weight to be applied to
traffic for a given component link when using hash-based
techniques for load distribution.
o ECMP group: Identifies a particular ECMP group. The ECMP group
may be required when configuring this feature (to apply a specific
set of large flow identification parameters to the ECMP group) and
will be required when specifying flow placement to achieve the
desired rebalancing. We note that multiple ECMP groups can share
an overlapping set (or non-overlapping subset) of component links.
This document does not deal with the complexity of addressing such
configurations.
The feature may be configured globally for all LAGs and/or for all
ECMP groups, or it may be configured specifically for a given LAG or
ECMP group.
5.3. Information for Alternative Placement of Large Flows
In cases where large flow recognition is handled by a central
management entity (see Section 4.3.3), an information model for flows
is required to allow the import of large flow information to the
router.
Typical fields used for identifying large flows were discussed in
Section 4.3.1. The IPFIX information model [RFC7012] can be
leveraged for large flow identification.
Large flow placement is achieved by specifying the relevant flow
information along with the following:
o For LAG: router's IP address, LAG ID, LAG component link ID.
o For ECMP: router's IP address, ECMP group, ECMP component link ID.
In the case where the ECMP component link itself comprises a LAG, we
would have to specify the parameters for both the ECMP group as well
as the LAG to which the large flow is being directed.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
5.4. Information for Redistribution of Small Flows
Redistribution of small flows is done using the following:
o For LAG: The LAG ID and the component link IDs along with the
relative weight of traffic to be assigned to each component link
ID are required.
o For ECMP: The ECMP group and the ECMP next hop along with the
relative weight of traffic to be assigned to each ECMP next hop
are required.
It is possible to have an ECMP next hop that itself comprises a LAG.
In that case, we would have to specify the new weights for both the
ECMP component links and the LAG component links.
In the case where an ECMP component link itself comprises a LAG, we
would have to specify new weights for both the component links within
the ECMP group as well as the component links within the LAG.
5.5. Export of Flow Information
Exporting large flow information is required when large flow
recognition is being done on a router but the decision to rebalance
is being made in a central management entity. Large flow information
includes flow identification and the component link ID that the flow
is currently assigned to. Other information such as flow QoS and
bandwidth may be exported too.
The IPFIX information model [RFC7012] can be leveraged for large flow
identification.
5.6. Monitoring Information
5.6.1. Interface (Link) Utilization
The incoming bytes (ifInOctets), outgoing bytes (ifOutOctets), and
interface speed (ifSpeed) can be obtained, for example, from the
Interfaces table (ifTable) in the MIB module defined in [RFC1213].
The link utilization can then be computed as follows:
Incoming link utilization = (delta_ifInOctets * 8) / (ifSpeed * T)
Outgoing link utilization = (delta_ifOutOctets * 8) / (ifSpeed * T)
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Where T is the interval over which the utilization is being measured,
delta_ifInOctets is the change in ifInOctets over that interval, and
delta_ifOutOctets is the change in ifOutOctets over that interval.
For high-speed Ethernet links, the etherStatsHighCapacityTable in the
MIB module defined in [RFC3273] can be used.
Similar results may be achieved using the corresponding objects of
other interface management data models such as YANG [RFC7223] if
those are used instead of MIBs.
For scalability, it is recommended to use the counter push mechanism
in [sFlow-v5] for the interface counters. Doing so would help avoid
counter polling through the MIB interface.
The outgoing link utilization of the component links within a
LAG/ECMP group can be used to compute the imbalance (see Section 5.1)
for the LAG/ECMP group.
5.6.2. Other Monitoring Information
Additional monitoring information that is useful includes:
o Number of times rebalancing was done.
o Time since the last rebalancing event.
o The number of large flows currently rebalanced by the scheme.
o A list of the large flows that have been rebalanced including
- the rate of each large flow at the time of the last rebalancing
for that flow,
- the time that rebalancing was last performed for the given
large flow, and
- the interfaces that the large flows was (re)directed to.
o The settings for the weights of the interfaces within a LAG/ECMP
group used by the small flows that depend on hashing.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
6. Operational Considerations
6.1. Rebalancing Frequency
Flows should be rebalanced only when the imbalance in the utilization
across component links exceeds a certain threshold. Frequent
rebalancing to achieve precise equitable utilization across component
links could be counterproductive as it may result in moving flows
back and forth between the component links, impacting packet ordering
and system stability. This applies regardless of whether large flows
or small flows are redistributed. It should be noted that reordering
is a concern for TCP flows with even a few packets because three out-
of-order packets would trigger sufficient duplicate ACKs to the
sender, resulting in a retransmission [RFC5681].
The operator would have to experiment with various values of the
large flow recognition parameters (minimum bandwidth threshold,
minimum bandwidth threshold for large flow maintenance, and
observation interval) and the imbalance threshold across component
links to tune the solution for their environment.
6.2. Handling Route Changes
Large flow rebalancing must be aware of any changes to the Forwarding
Information Base (FIB). In cases where the next hop of a route no
longer to points to the LAG or to an ECMP group, any PBR entries
added as described in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 must be withdrawn in
order to avoid the creation of forwarding loops.
6.3. Forwarding Resources
Hash-based techniques used for load balancing with LAG/ECMP are
usually stateless. The mechanisms described in this document require
additional resources in the forwarding plane of routers for creating
PBR rules that are capable of overriding the forwarding decision from
the hash-based approach. These resources may limit the number of
flows that can be rebalanced and may also impact the latency
experienced by packets due to the additional lookups that are
required.
7. Security Considerations
This document does not directly impact the security of the Internet
infrastructure or its applications. In fact, it could help if there
is a DoS attack pattern that causes a hash imbalance resulting in
heavy overloading of large flows to certain LAG/ECMP component links.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
An attacker with knowledge of the large flow recognition algorithm
and any stateless distribution method can generate flows that are
distributed in a way that overloads a specific path. This could be
used to cause the creation of PBR rules that exhaust the available
PBR rule capacity on routers in the network. If PBR rules are
consequently discarded, this could result in congestion on the
attacker-selected path. Alternatively, tracking large numbers of PBR
rules could result in performance degradation.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[802.1AX] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008,
2008.
[RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast
and Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November
2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed., and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information
Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
8.2. Informative References
[BIN-PACK] Coffman, Jr., E., Garey, M., and D. Johnson.
"Approximation Algorithms for Bin-Packing -- An Updated
Survey" (in "Algorithm Design for Computer System
Design"), Springer, 1984.
[CAIDA] "Caida Traffic Analysis Research",
<http://www.caida.org/research/traffic-analysis/>.
[DEVOFLOW] Mogul, J., Tourrilhes, J., Yalagandula, P., Sharma, P.,
Curtis, R., and S. Banerjee, "DevoFlow: Cost-Effective
Flow Management for High Performance Enterprise
Networks", Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, 2010.
[FLOW-ACC] Zseby, T., Hirsch, T., and B. Claise, "Packet Sampling
for Flow Accounting: Challenges and Limitations",
Proceedings of the 9th international Passive and Active
Measurement Conference, 2008.
[ITCOM] Jo, J., Kim, Y., Chao, H., and F. Merat, "Internet
traffic load balancing using dynamic hashing with flow
volume", SPIE ITCOM, 2002.
[NDTM] Estan, C. and G. Varghese, "New Directions in Traffic
Measurement and Accounting", Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM,
August 2002.
[NVGRE] Garg, P. and Y. Wang, "NVGRE: Network Virtualization
using Generic Routing Encapsulation", Work in Progress,
draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-07, November 2014.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:
MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
[RFC2992] Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path
Algorithm", RFC 2992, November 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2992>.
[RFC3273] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base for High Capacity Networks", RFC 3273,
July 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3273>.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed.,
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC
3931, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3931>.
[RFC3954] Claise, B., Ed., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export
Version 9", RFC 3954, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3954>.
[RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek,
"Architecture for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5470,
March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5470>.
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and
F. Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP
Packet Selection", RFC 5475, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.
[RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load-
Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5640>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[RFC7226] Villamizar, C., Ed., McDysan, D., Ed., Ning, S., Malis,
A., and L. Yong, "Requirements for Advanced Multipath in
MPLS Networks", RFC 7226, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7226>.
[SAMP-BASIC] Phaal, P. and S. Panchen, "Packet Sampling Basics",
<http://www.sflow.org/packetSamplingBasics/>.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
[sFlow-v5] Phaal, P. and M. Lavine, "sFlow version 5", July 2004,
<http://www.sflow.org/sflow_version_5.txt>.
[sFlow-LAG] Phaal, P. and A. Ghanwani, "sFlow LAG Counters
Structure", September 2012,
<http://www.sflow.org/sflow_lag.txt>.
[STT] Davie, B., Ed., and J. Gross, "A Stateless Transport
Tunneling Protocol for Network Virtualization (STT)",
Work in Progress, draft-davie-stt-06, April 2014.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P.,
Kreeger, L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright,
"Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A
Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks
over Layer 3 Networks", RFC 7348, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[YONG] Yong, L. and P. Yang, "Enhanced ECMP and Large Flow
Aware Transport", Work in Progress,
draft-yong-pwe3-enhance-ecmp-lfat-01, March 2010.
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Appendix A. Internet Traffic Analysis and Load-Balancing Simulation
Internet traffic [CAIDA] has been analyzed to obtain flow statistics
such as the number of packets in a flow and the flow duration. The
5-tuple in the packet header (IP source address, IP destination
address, transport protocol source port number, transport protocol
destination port number, and IP protocol) is used for flow
identification. The analysis indicates that < ~2% of the flows take
~30% of total traffic volume while the rest of the flows (> ~98%)
contributes ~70% [YONG].
The simulation has shown that, given Internet traffic patterns, the
hash-based technique does not evenly distribute flows over ECMP
paths. Some paths may be > 90% loaded while others are < 40% loaded.
The greater the number of ECMP paths, the more severe is the
imbalance in the load distribution. This implies that hash-based
distribution can cause some paths to become congested while other
paths are underutilized [YONG].
The simulation also shows substantial improvement by using the large
flow-aware, hash-based distribution technique described in this
document. In using the same simulated traffic, the improved
rebalancing can achieve < 10% load differences among the paths. It
proves how large flow-aware, hash-based distribution can effectively
compensate the uneven load balancing caused by hashing and the
traffic characteristics [YONG].
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
review and valuable feedback on earlier versions of this document:
Shane Amante, Fred Baker, Michael Bugenhagen, Zhen Cao, Brian
Carpenter, Benoit Claise, Michael Fargano, Wes George, Sriganesh
Kini, Roman Krzanowski, Andrew Malis, Dave McDysan, Pete Moyer, Peter
Phaal, Dan Romascanu, Curtis Villamizar, Jianrong Wong, George Yum,
and Weifeng Zhang. As a part of the IETF Last Call process, valuable
comments were received from Martin Thomson and Carlos Pignataro.
Contributors
Sanjay Khanna
Cisco Systems
EMail: sanjakha@gmail.com
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 7424 Optimizing Load Distribution over LAG/ECMP January 2015
Authors' Addresses
Ram Krishnan
Brocade Communications
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
Phone: +1-408-406-7890
EMail: ramkri123@gmail.com
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
5340 Legacy Drive
Plano, TX 75025
United States
Phone: +1-469-277-5837
EMail: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Anoop Ghanwani
Dell
5450 Great America Pkwy
Santa Clara, CA 95054
United States
Phone: +1-408-571-3228
EMail: anoop@alumni.duke.edu
Ning So
Vinci Systems
2613 Fairbourne Cir
Plano, TX 75093
United States
EMail: ningso@yahoo.com
Bhumip Khasnabish
ZTE Corporation
New Jersey 07960
United States
Phone: +1-781-752-8003
EMail: vumip1@gmail.com
Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 29]