copyright 2004 lucent technologies inc. all rights reserved. mpls network tuning: how to squeeze...

Copyright 2004 Lucent Technologies Inc. All rights reserved.

MPLS Network Tuning:How to Squeeze Most From Your

Network

Swarup Acharya ([email protected])

Technical Manager, Multiservice Networking Research Group

Optical Networking Division, Bell Laboratories

2Copyright 2004 Lucent Technologies Inc. All rights reserved.

Multi-Protocol Label Switching

MPLS has emerged as the foundation of next-generation data networks

– Provides the underpinnings of the converged network vision

– “Connection-oriented” veneer on an inherent connectionless IP network

IP/MPLS market continues to grow

– Year-over-year traffic growth: 119% (2002), 118% (2003), 84% (2004) [Infonetics Research]

Drivers for data network convergence

– CapEx Savings, OpEx savings, Competition, Convergence..

This talk will focus on Network Management challenges in delivering the lower CapEx, OpEx promise of MPLS


MPLS Traffic Engineering

The cornerstone of MPLS is Traffic Engineering (TE)

– Given a new demand, how best to route it in the network?

– No longer limited by IGP (OSPF, IS-IS) restrictions of:

• Destination-based forwarding

• Simple “additive” min-cost routing, ignorant of bandwidth

MPLS TE enables:

– Constrained-based routing

• Bandwidth, delay etc..

– Explicit routing (aka Source routing)

– Label Switched Paths (LSP)

• With appropriate resources reservations via RSVP


TE Benefits

C

D

B

E

A L3

L2

L1

Path from L1-L3Path from L2-L3

IGPShortest PathRouting

“Longer” paths under-utilized,“Shorter” paths bottlenecked!

C

D

B

E

A L3

L2

L1

TrafficEngineeredPaths

TE enables a more load-balanced network..


Will TE alone provide all the efficiency you can get?

MPLS + TE moves the network from packet-switched to a “virtual” circuit-switched IP network..

What about bandwidth inefficiencies inherent in circuit-switched environments such as SONET,SDH, ATM…?

Will MPLS suffer the same fate?

TE Necessary, But is it Sufficient?

General belief that Traffic Engineering enables efficient MPLS networks

– “Traffic engineering reduces the overall cost of operations by more efficient use of bandwidth resources… .. [Cisco documentation]


SONET/SDH Bandwidth Fragmentation

Primary cause of poor SONET/SDH efficiency

Circuit churn leaves behind “stranded” capacity

New requests often denied even if sufficient capacity exists

– Often at only ~30-40% network utilization

SONET NMSs have had “constrained-based” routing for a while now..

– Bandwidth accounted in routing

– Arcane SONET/SDH constraints

Increasingly, defragmentation tools used to “recover” capacity

– Often, in conjunction with newer Optical Control Planes


SONET/SDH Link Fragmentation

2.5 Gbps Link on a Fiber

622 Mbps 622 Mbps 622 Mbps

b c d fa e

622 Mbps

c d

622 Mbps 622 Mbps 622 Mbps

b fa e

622 Mbps

New request for a622 Mbps demand rejected!

Request accommodated!

• By rearranging traffic carried on different time slots, capacity on the link can be freed and reused

Symbol Bandwidth SDH SONET

Fiber/link 2.5 Gbps STM-16 OC-48

622 Mbps STM-4 OC-12

155 Mbps STM-1 OC-3

Legend/Glossary

e

a


SONET/SDH Ring Fragmentation

New STS-3 demand fromNode2-4 rejected!

Accepted here

7-Node STS-48 BLSR RingAlternate Routing of

Same Demands on Ring

Nodes

Tim

e S

lots

Is there an MPLS analogue?


MPLS Network Example

: Bandwidth of all Links

L1, L2, L3: LSPs of /2 b/w

New Service Request:

Setup LSP L4 between A and C, Bandwidth

C

DBF

E A

L2 L1

L3

Router A rejects request:

No available route meeting b/w requirements

No available bandwidth? Or, Is the bandwidth fragmented?


Avoiding Bandwidth Fragmentation

TE alone does not guarantee high efficiency

– L1-L3 were “optimally” routed in both cases, yet fragmentation occurs

Key: Can the demands be routed without adding new hardware?

Lower Fragmentation Higher Utilization Lower CapEx

C

DBF

E A

L1

L2

L3

L4Alternate routing for L1-L3,

enables L4 to be met


Network Tuning

Fragmentation is a problem for MPLS networks too

In general, Network Management systems need to provide Network Engineering tools to address fragmentation

– “Traffic Engineering puts traffic where the bandwidth is, Network Engineering creates bandwidth where the traffic will be..”

– Relatively little focus on engineering tools

– Network engineering requires “global” knowledge, TE is a per-LSP optimization

However, network engineering operation cannot be service disruptive

Network Tuning: Hitless, Disruption-free Network Engineering

– Network tuning is NOT network planning

– For live, operational networks, not greenfield designs


Re-cap

Did the Net-Heads check with the Bell-Heads as to what NM quagmire they were getting into?

MPLS Traffic Engineering:

• Helps avoid congestion prevalent in native IP networks

• Limited ability to mitigate circuit-switched inefficiencies

• On its own, cannot extract the most juice from the network

Critical need for Network Tuning tools

No reason why MPLS cannot become equally inefficient down the road..

Key Tradeoff:

Grow infrastructure to meet traffic demand [CapEx Hit], OR,

Tune network for improved efficiency [OpEx Hit]?


Network Tuning Scenarios

The router rejected a new LSP setup request due to insufficient bandwidth. Can I engineer the current LSP routes to “free” the necessary bandwidth for the new one?

I need to bring down a router for an OS upgrade. Can I:

a) Re-route the LSPs on the router to avoid bringing them down?

b) Upgrade the router OS and then revert them back to their original routes?

The traffic on a node/set of links had exceed the recommended load threshold. Can I move traffic from the “hot zone” to minimize damage in case of failure?

Can I have automated, scalable Network Tuning tools?


Bell Labs Möbius Tool:MPLS Provisioning, Tuning System

Link color indicates load (Red: high, Green: acceptable load)

Support For:- Cisco

72*/75*/120*

- JNPR M*, T* - ERX


Möbius LSP View


Network Tuning: Fail-Setup Optimization


Optimization Done!



Impacted Circuits (Old Routes)


Impacted Circuits (Old + New Routes)

1: Re-route

2: Re-route 3: Provision


Network View (Before)

Network View (After)

Clear Traffic in this“Hot Zone” below

specific threshold..

Network Tuning: Load Balance (“Hot Zone” Clearing)


Network Engineering Requirements

Step-by-step Migration Sequence– Operating on live traffic -- providing a design for an “optimized” layout

does not help

How do I get from current LSP layout to the new layout?

– Original LSP QoS constraints have to be maintained on new route

C

DBF

E A

L2L1

L3

C

DBF

E A

L2

L1

L3

C

DBF

E A

L2

L1

L3L4

Re-route L2 Re-route L3 Provision L4


Algorithmic Challenge

Migration a very challenging theoretical problem (“NP-hard”)

– Problem of scale -- exponential search space

Requires innovative algorithms for large networks

How to scale to a network with 10s of routers, 100s of links and 1000s of LSPs?

In Bell Labs, we have patent-pending algorithms to provide migration sequence in “real-time”

– Milliseconds to seconds for reasonable sized networks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

30 50 70 80 90

Network Load (%)

% H

ot

Zo

ne

Cle

ared

HZ LSP Rerouted Non HZ LSP Rerouted

Hot Zone Load Balancing

• Hot Zone size = 10% Network• Goal: Clear all LSPs in Hot Zone• Chart shows contribution of LSPs outside the hot zone in meeting the goal as network loads increase


Requirements II: Hitless, Disruption-free Engineering

“Hitless” is not zero packet loss

• In reality, everything is only near-hitless

Requirement: It should be perceived as hitless from the application’s perspective

• SONET/SDH has a 50ms grace during protection switching

• Even with a 100 ms hit, can do >500 re-routes before a 4-9s reliability SLA is broken.

MPLS provides infrastructure for hitless re-routing


MPLS make-before-break

Mechanism to achieve hitless LSP re-routing – Signal new route, switch traffic and delete old route

Signaling protocols use intelligence when reserving bandwidth on new route

– E.g., Shared Explicit (SE) style flag in RSVP to avoid double bandwidth reservation on common links

Possibility of packets going out-of-order – If new route is significantly shorter than original route

– Even if it occurs, very short duration and bounded


Inducing make-before-break

Typically, make-before-break is an internal function

– Used by router to re-route LSPs (e.g, if ‘re-optimize’ flag on)

For network engineering, make-before-break needs to be triggered from the outside. Also:

– New path is given (as opposed to router calculating it)

– If the new path is bad, traffic should not switch and bring the LSP down!

Routers need to provide mechanism to trigger make-before-break

– Backdoors available - varies by vendor OS

– Insert the new path with a higher priority (lower path option) and force a re-optimization

– Replace the Explicit Route Object (ERO) with a new route


Requirements III: Preserve Network Stability

Should not bring down customer traffic

• Key: Traffic should switch only if new path is up!

LSP re-routes does not change the IP topology

• Only the path is changed, not the connectivity

Will cause OSPF updates

• Bandwidth on links will change

Should be attempted during “lean” traffic periods


CapEx Savings from Tuning

Simulation Model

40 Node, 100 Link network (to start)

LSP Traffic randomly generated and routed on shortest available path

On failure to setup LSP due to lack of bandwidth:

Case I: No Engineering

A new link added between source and destination

Case II: With Engineering

Attempt to re-route LSPs to create “free” space for new one

On failure, new link added between source and destination

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

100000 300000 500000 700000 900000 1100000

Traffic Volume (MB)

#OC

192

Por

ts

Norm al Operation Mobius--- No Engineering --- With Engineering

More traffic for same infrastructure

Network Growth with Increased Traffic


CapEx Savings - II

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

100000 200000 300000 400000 500000

Traffic Volume (Mb)

# O

C-1

92 P

orts

No Engineering With Engineering

Alternative Simulation Model

10 Node, 15 Link network (to start)

LSP Traffic randomly generated and routed on shortest available path

On failure to setup LSP due to lack of bandwidth:

Case I: No Engineering

A new link added on the hop that is out of capacity

Case II: With Engineering

Attempt to re-route LSPs to create “free” space for new one

On failure, new link added on the hop that is out of capacity


Network Management Systems

Traditional IP networking view is that router has all the smarts

Engineering “intelligence” requires network-wide view

– Has to reside in a single “entity”

– Too complicated to co-ordinate engineering operations across different routers in a distributed fashion

Good choice: MPLS Network Management System (NMS)

NMS needs to provide support for:

– Algorithmic and graphical tools for what-if scenarios

– Seamless, point-n-click support to execute optimizations

– Support for proactive engineering

• No longer limited to “reactive” operational mindset

Requisite NMS tools can lower operations overhead from hours/days to minutes!


Fast Network Adaptors Creation Large Multi-vendor Testing Labs

Committed Corporate Partnership with Hardware Vendors

Component-Based, Multi-Vendor Activation

Rich set of Services over L2 & L3

Software Development Kits for Network Element Support

NavisNavis Provisioning ManagerProvisioning Manager

WorkManager

WorkManager

L2&3

Order GatewayOrder Gateway

Inventory Gateway

Inventory Gateway

Network AdaptorsNetwork Adaptors

Service Modules Service Modules

Routing & MPLS TERouting & MPLS TEL2&3

Lucent’s Navis Provisioning Manager

Component-based, Multi-vendor Layer 2/3 NMS

ActivationFlow

ConfigurationFlow

Core IP/MPLS EMS / NECore IP/MPLS EMS / NE FR/ATM EMS / NEFR/ATM EMS / NE Access EMS / NEAccess EMS / NE

Service Modules

VPN

ATM Frame Relay xDSL

MPLS

ATMoMPLS Ethernet IPSEC

Möbius


Conclusions

MPLS gaining momentum in service provider networks

Industry focus on Traffic Engineering

– Does not suffice to get the most from the network

– Need to also consider network engineering and hitless tuning

MPLS provides the necessary infrastructure for network tuning

– Necessary requirement to avoid inefficiencies in circuit-switched environments

Effective network tuning improves network utilization, lowers CapEx!


Questions?

copyright 2004 lucent technologies inc. all rights reserved. mpls network tuning: how to squeeze...

Documents