Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
SPRING
Interoperability testing report
Stéphane Litkowski, Network Architect and Orange Expert
2
Agenda
1. Orange & Segment Routing
2. Proof of Concept (POC)
3. Summary of tests
4. Conclusion
3
Orange Business Services interest on SR
 Fast & good reaction to failure
– Fast reroute thanks to TI-LFA
– IGP micro lo...
4
Why Fast ReRoute ?
 More and more applications are carried over IP/MPLS networks
– as IP/MPLS networks become the only ...
5
Why Topology Independent LFA (TI-LFA)?
 Provides 100% coverage for link and node protection.
 During FRR, enforce the ...
6
Topology Independent LFA applicability
 Directly applicable to all IGP destinations
– Prefix Segments (SR), LDP FECs (M...
7
Agenda
1. Orange & Segment Routing
2. Proof of Concept (POC)
3. Summary of tests
4. Conclusion
8
PoC high level goals
 Segment Routing base interoperability with 3 vendors
– Cisco (IOS XR, ASR9k)
– Alcatel Lucent (SR...
9
POC#1 topology
E A
F B
D
Tester
C
Tester
 Vendors :
– A&B are Cisco
– E&F are Juniper
– C&D are Alcatel Lucent
 Segmen...
10
 Vendors :
– A&B are Cisco
– G,E,F are Juniper
– C is Alcatel Lucent
 Segment Routing control plane : IS-
IS
 Segmen...
11
 Goal : ensure IS-IS extensions are correctly populated and
interpreted as defined at IETF
 All implementations suppo...
12
root@juniper> show isis database
CISCO.00-00 Sequence: 0x1b6, Checksum: 0x741a, Lifetime: 64492 secs
…
TLVs:
Authentica...
13
 Goal :
– ensure MPLS dataplane is correctly populated
– Ensure forwarding for both Adj-SID and node-SID is working
we...
14
Forwarding plane testing
Simulating a crazy path
 Forwarding plane works fine on all implementations, we can
combine a...
15
 ECMP works fine up to a certain stack depth (seen on all
implementation) :
Forwarding plane testing
ECMP with Prefix-...
16
 ECMP works fine up to a certain stack depth (seen on all
implementation) :
Forwarding plane testing
ECMP with Prefix-...
17
 Implementations can inspect only up to a certain label stack
depth
 This is a theorical limitation that service prov...
18
 Goal :
– ensure that IPFRR works well with SR path
– ensure that LDP traffic can be protected by SR
– evaluate TILFA ...
19
Fast reroute testing
RLFA using SR path
A B
D E F
Tester
Tester
500 500
50
700 100
SRGB start
16000, Index 5
SRGB start...
20
Fast reroute testing
TILFA enforcing postconvergence path
Works well
!
A B
D F
50k
500k
700k
500k 600k
R Simulated node...
21
Fast reroute testing
TI LFA with ECMP protection path
 Fancy topologies to have TI LFA use per ECMP paths
Works well
!...
22
Fast reroute testing
TI LFA with ECMP protection path : choice of Adj-SID
 Per prefix FIB loadsharing
BF
24212
24213
2...
23
Fast reroute testing
TI LFA with ECMP protection path : choice of Adj-SID
 Use Bundle-Adj-SID (S flag)
BF
24212 / 300
...
24
Fast reroute testing
TI LFA with a lot of protection lists
 Fancy topologies to have TI LFA use per destination protec...
25
Agenda
1. Orange & Segment Routing
2. Proof of Concept (POC)
3. Summary of tests
4. Conclusion
26
Good Interoperability results!
 Good interoperability on base Segment Routing features
– Node/prefix segment, adjacenc...
27
Agenda
1. Orange & Segment Routing
2. Proof of Concept (POC)
3. Summary of tests
4. Conclusion
28
Wrap up (past to present)
 Segment Routing gets real
– IETF specifications (WG documents): RIP IETF fights (?)
– PoC w...
29
Wrap up (futur)
 Some polishing to improve base SR :
– core spec required for interoperability need to be stable now.
...
Thank you
31
Summary of tests
Category Test
Control plane Prefix SID P/E flags change 
Control plane Prefix SID N flag 
Control pl...
32
Summary of tests
Category Test
Forwarding plane LSR forwarding Prefix SID (with different P, E flags) 
Forwarding plan...
33
Summary of tests
Category Test
Fast reroute TILFA, post-convergence path is LFA 
Fast reroute TILFA, post-convergence ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

1

Share

Download to read offline

MPLS SDN 2015 - SPRING interoperability testing

Download to read offline

This is a presentation done at MPLS SDN congress in March 2015 about Segment Routing interoperability testings

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

MPLS SDN 2015 - SPRING interoperability testing

  1. 1. SPRING Interoperability testing report Stéphane Litkowski, Network Architect and Orange Expert
  2. 2. 2 Agenda 1. Orange & Segment Routing 2. Proof of Concept (POC) 3. Summary of tests 4. Conclusion
  3. 3. 3 Orange Business Services interest on SR  Fast & good reaction to failure – Fast reroute thanks to TI-LFA – IGP micro loop avoidance  Tactical TE – Using PCE
  4. 4. 4 Why Fast ReRoute ?  More and more applications are carried over IP/MPLS networks – as IP/MPLS networks become the only network – as applications moves from LAN to WAN/cloud  Some applications are more sensitive to consecutive packets loss  We must find a cure: – Fast(er) IGP convergence – “It’s never enough” – FRR Convergence time Timeline LoCt with FRR time Timeline
  5. 5. 5 Why Topology Independent LFA (TI-LFA)?  Provides 100% coverage for link and node protection.  During FRR, enforce the post convergence path from the PLR to each destinations. – FRR path is easier to manage (see draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa- manageability) – FRR path is de facto well sized – FRR path is predicatable
  6. 6. 6 Topology Independent LFA applicability  Directly applicable to all IGP destinations – Prefix Segments (SR), LDP FECs (MPLS), IGP prefixes (IP)  Incremental deployment possible  Number of labels to push is reasonable in Orange ASes – See my MPLS SDN 2014 talk !
  7. 7. 7 Agenda 1. Orange & Segment Routing 2. Proof of Concept (POC) 3. Summary of tests 4. Conclusion
  8. 8. 8 PoC high level goals  Segment Routing base interoperability with 3 vendors – Cisco (IOS XR, ASR9k) – Alcatel Lucent (SROS, 7750) – Juniper (JunOS, MX) – This testing was performed using early codes from all vendors  Fast-reroute use case with Segment Routing*  Two POCs set up – 2 sites/teams * not available on all early codes
  9. 9. 9 POC#1 topology E A F B D Tester C Tester  Vendors : – A&B are Cisco – E&F are Juniper – C&D are Alcatel Lucent  Segment Routing control plane : IS-IS  Segment Routing data plane : MPLS  MPLS LER & LSR : – Flows : VPN-IPv4, VPN-IPv6, L2VPN, Internet (IPv4 and 6PE)
  10. 10. 10  Vendors : – A&B are Cisco – G,E,F are Juniper – C is Alcatel Lucent  Segment Routing control plane : IS- IS  Segment Routing data plane : MPLS  MPLS LSR function only  Own SR code developed for testing all flags and fancy topologies POC#2 topology A B C G E F Tester Tester SR simulator Tester
  11. 11. 11  Goal : ensure IS-IS extensions are correctly populated and interpreted as defined at IETF  All implementations supports the minimum set of extensions to build a live segment routing network : Prefix-SID, Node-SID, Adj-SID LAN and p2p.  All implementations are interworking correctly at control plane level Control plane testing Works well !
  12. 12. 12 root@juniper> show isis database CISCO.00-00 Sequence: 0x1b6, Checksum: 0x741a, Lifetime: 64492 secs … TLVs: Authentication data: 14 bytes Area address: 49.0001 (3) Speaks: IP Hostname: A IP address: 1.1.1.1 Router Capability: Router ID 1.1.1.1, Flags: 0x00 SPRING Capability - Flags: 0x80, Range: 8000, SID-Label: 16000 IS extended neighbor: TSTP1.00, Metric: default 500000 IP address: 10.166.0.9 Neighbor's IP address: 10.166.0.10 P2P IPV4 Adj-SID - Flags:0x30, Weight:0, Label: 24002 IS extended neighbor: TSTJ1.00, Metric: default 700000 IP address: 10.166.0.21 Neighbor's IP address: 10.166.0.22 P2P IPV4 Adj-SID - Flags:0x30, Weight:0, Label: 24000 IS extended neighbor: TSTR2.00, Metric: default 1000000 IP address: 10.166.0.61 Neighbor's IP address: 10.166.0.62 P2P IPV4 Adj-SID - Flags:0x30, Weight:0, Label: 24001 IP extended prefix: 1.1.1.1/32 metric 0 up 8 bytes of subtlvs Node SID, Flags: 0x40, Algo: SPF(0), Value: 4 IP extended prefix: 101.1.0.0/24 metric 1000000 up No queued transmissions Control plane testing Juniper router learning CISCO SR informations
  13. 13. 13  Goal : – ensure MPLS dataplane is correctly populated – Ensure forwarding for both Adj-SID and node-SID is working well – Ensure we can combine any SID in a label stack – Ensure ECMP works with node-SID Forwarding plane testing Works well !
  14. 14. 14 Forwarding plane testing Simulating a crazy path  Forwarding plane works fine on all implementations, we can combine any segment to create fancy paths : A B C D E F Tester Tester 500 500 50 50 50 700 700 24022 131043 300144 ETH 24022 131043 16004 16001 300144 800004 IP Adj SID SRGB start 16000, Index 6 SRGB start 16000, Index 5 SRGB start 800000, Index 3 SRGB start 800000, Index 2 SRGB start 800000, Index 1 SRGB start 16000, Index 4 Tested with more than 10 labels in the stack 16003
  15. 15. 15  ECMP works fine up to a certain stack depth (seen on all implementation) : Forwarding plane testing ECMP with Prefix-SID A B C D E F Tester Tester 500 500 50 25 25 700 700 24018 SRGB start 16000, Index 6 SRGB start 16000, Index 5 SRGB start 800000, Index 3 SRGB start 800000, Index 2 SRGB start 800000, Index 1 SRGB start 16000, Index 4 300640 24002 ECMP  ETH 16005 24018 300640 800003 IP Adj SID Expected behavior
  16. 16. 16  ECMP works fine up to a certain stack depth (seen on all implementation) : Forwarding plane testing ECMP with Prefix-SID A B C D E F Tester Tester 500 500 50 25 25 700 700 24018 ETH 16005 24018 300640 800004 24002 800002 IP Adj SID SRGB start 16000, Index 6 SRGB start 16000, Index 5 SRGB start 800000, Index 3 SRGB start 800000, Index 2 SRGB start 800000, Index 1 SRGB start 16000, Index 4 800003 300640 24002 No ECMP  Expected behavior Purely theorical test
  17. 17. 17  Implementations can inspect only up to a certain label stack depth  This is a theorical limitation that service provider may not face in a real deployment : – Shortest path only requires one segment – Fast-reroute requires one segment in more than 95% of cases – First analysis on Traffic Engineering shown that few segments may be required (topology dependent)  Entropy label usage provides even more confidence (no need of deep inspection) Forwarding plane testing ECMP with Prefix-SID Ready for deployment
  18. 18. 18  Goal : – ensure that IPFRR works well with SR path – ensure that LDP traffic can be protected by SR – evaluate TILFA when available Fast reroute testing
  19. 19. 19 Fast reroute testing RLFA using SR path A B D E F Tester Tester 500 500 50 700 100 SRGB start 16000, Index 5 SRGB start 800000, Index 3 SRGB start 800000, Index 2 SRGB start 800000, Index 1 ETH 800004 IP SRGB start 16000, Index 4 Primary path stack rLFA FRR path stack ETH 800004 IP 800001 PQ Works well ! slitkows@F> show route table mpls.0 label 800004 mpls.0: 11 destinations, 11 routes (11 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 800004 *[IS-IS/18] 00:12:34, metric 550 > to 1.0.0.5 via ge-5/0/0.0, Swap 16004 to 1.0.0.1 via ge-0/1/3.0, Swap 800004, Push 800001(top)
  20. 20. 20 Fast reroute testing TILFA enforcing postconvergence path Works well ! A B D F 50k 500k 700k 500k 600k R Simulated node advertising prefixes 1.0.0.0/32 -> index 17 1.0.0.1/32 -> no PrefixSID 1.0.0.2/32 -> Index 19 1.0.0.3/32 -> no PrefixSID  Router « R » owns both SR and non-SR prefixes  In case of A-D link failure, traffic should flow through ABDR path PQ Expected protection path for non SR prefixes : ABFDR (remote LFA) Expected protection path for SR prefixes : ABDR (TILFA using postconvergence path) P Q L2 1.0.0.0/32 [502/115] low priority via 10.166.0.22, TenGigE0/0/0/0, D, SRGB Base: 800000, Weight: 0 TI-LFA backup via B (P) [3.3.3.3], D (Q) [1.1.1.1] via 10.166.0.62, TenGigE0/0/0/2 B, SRGB Base: 16000 Label stack [ImpNull, 16507, 800017] src R.00-00, 0.0.0.0, prefix-SID index 17, R:0 N:0 P:1 E:0 V:0 L:0 L2 1.0.0.1/32 [502/115] low priority via 10.166.0.22, TenGigE0/0/0/0, D, SRGB Base: 800000, Weight: 0 Remote FRR backup via F [4.4.4.4], via 10.166.0.62, TenGigE0/0/0/2 B, SRGB Base: 16000, Weight: 0 Label stack [16002, None] src R.00-00, 0.0.0.0 L2 1.0.0.2/32 [502/115] low priority via 10.166.0.22, TenGigE0/0/0/0, D, SRGB Base: 800000, Weight: 0 TI-LFA backup via B (P) [3.3.3.3], D (Q) [1.1.1.1] via 10.166.0.62, TenGigE0/0/0/2 B, SRGB Base: 16000 Label stack [ImpNull, 16507, 800019] src R.00-00, 0.0.0.0, prefix-SID index 19, R:0 N:0 P:1 E:0 V:0 L:0 L2 1.0.0.3/32 [502/115] low priority via 10.166.0.22, TenGigE0/0/0/0, D, SRGB Base: 800000, Weight: 0 Remote FRR backup via F [4.4.4.4], via 10.166.0.62, TenGigE0/0/0/2 B, SRGB Base: 16000, Weight: 0 Label stack [16002, None] src R.00-00, 0.0.0.0
  21. 21. 21 Fast reroute testing TI LFA with ECMP protection path  Fancy topologies to have TI LFA use per ECMP paths Works well ! And … E A F B D Tester C Tester 5 5 70 70 50 200 6 parallel adjacencies P Q ETH 16003 IP Primary path stack SRGB start 16000, Index 3 SRGB start 16000, Index 4 SRGB start 16000, Index 2 SRGB start 800000, Index 5 SRGB start 800000, Index 6 TILFA FRR path stack ETH Adj-SID IP 800006 16003 ?
  22. 22. 22 Fast reroute testing TI LFA with ECMP protection path : choice of Adj-SID  Per prefix FIB loadsharing BF 24212 24213 24214 24215 24217 24216 TILFA FRR path stack ETH 24212 IP#1 800006 16003 ETH 24213 IP#2 800006 16003 ETH 24214 IP#3 800006 16003 InLabel Outlabel OutInterface 24212 Pop If1 24213 Pop If2 24214 Pop If3 …
  23. 23. 23 Fast reroute testing TI LFA with ECMP protection path : choice of Adj-SID  Use Bundle-Adj-SID (S flag) BF 24212 / 300 24213 / 300 24214 / 300 24215 / 300 24217 / 300 24216 / 300 TILFA FRR path stack ETH 300 IP#1 800006 16003 Each interface has two Adj-SIDs InLab el Outlab el OutInterface 300 Pop Loadbalance If1,If2 … If6 24212 Pop If1 24213 Pop If2 Not implemente d
  24. 24. 24 Fast reroute testing TI LFA with a lot of protection lists  Fancy topologies to have TI LFA use per destination protection lists A B D F T 1 T 2 R 1 RZ 1 R3 0 RZ 30 500 500 500500 1 1 10M … Simulated topology, 30 different chains, 30 different P and Q PQ PQ R1 TI-LFA backup via RZ1 (P) [1.0.0.51], R1 (Q) [1.0.0.11] R2 TI-LFA backup via RZ2 (P) [1.0.0.55], R2 (Q) [1.0.0.15] R3 TI-LFA backup via RZ3 (P) [1.0.0.59], R3 (Q) [1.0.0.19] … R7 TI-LFA backup via RZ7 (P) [1.0.0.75], R7 (Q) [1.0.0.35] Node-SID Adj-SID Works well ! 10M 1 1 50
  25. 25. 25 Agenda 1. Orange & Segment Routing 2. Proof of Concept (POC) 3. Summary of tests 4. Conclusion
  26. 26. 26 Good Interoperability results!  Good interoperability on base Segment Routing features – Node/prefix segment, adjacency segment, SR capability (SRGB) – Even though the specification is young and 3 beta implementations were used  Some minor points to mention that does not prevent deployments : – Adjacency-SID bundle/set are not implemented by anyone – Few bugs on all codes and very reactive corrections (early codes used, so it was expected) – Few CLI enhancements required for better manageability – FRR could be optimized to manage ECMP (inherent to FRR, not SR)  LDP – SR interop is not widely implemented yet  Using the same SRGB on all nodes would be very useful but is not yet available – to simulate domain wide labels, especially as SR stacks multiple labels from multiples nodes hence has more labels to troubleshoot. – Option 1: Having all vendors agree on the same default?? – Option 2: Having a (fully) configurable SRGB on all implementations/plateform?
  27. 27. 27 Agenda 1. Orange & Segment Routing 2. Proof of Concept (POC) 3. Summary of tests 4. Conclusion
  28. 28. 28 Wrap up (past to present)  Segment Routing gets real – IETF specifications (WG documents): RIP IETF fights (?) – PoC with 3 interoperable implementations (more available) industry is following  Fast Reroute use case available ! – SR-based rLFA or TILFA  Production codes are there  Segment Routing can be deployed now on a live network !  Congrats to all vendors !
  29. 29. 29 Wrap up (futur)  Some polishing to improve base SR : – core spec required for interoperability need to be stable now. – Implementations are here, let's not make them non compatible. – prefix SID, adjacency SID, mapping-server, SR capability – Need to clarify mapping-server behaviors  Then tactical TE … (testing planned in 2015)  And more … : micro loop avoidance, OAMs, path repair …  Working also on YANG model for SR configuration/operation
  30. 30. Thank you
  31. 31. 31 Summary of tests Category Test Control plane Prefix SID P/E flags change  Control plane Prefix SID N flag  Control plane Prefix SID algorithm change , whatever the value of Algoritm, SPT is computed Control plane Prefix SID IPv6  not supported by some vendor (not a use case for us) Control plane Adjacency SID P2P  Control plane Adjacency SID LAN  Control plane Adjacency SID Link flaps  Control plane Mapping Server SID binding advertisement & reception  interoperability issue due to implementation of different versions of the draft. This has been fixed during the testing. Control plane Mapping Server SID active/backup  Control plane Mapping Server: adding/removing ranges  Control plane Mapping Server SID overlapping ranges on different nodes , behavior is not very clear to us, and clarification are required at IETF level for interoperability
  32. 32. 32 Summary of tests Category Test Forwarding plane LSR forwarding Prefix SID (with different P, E flags)  Forwarding plane LSR forwarding Adjacency SID  Forwarding plane LSR forwarding combination of segments  Forwarding plane LSR forwarding ECMP Prefix SID  Forwarding plane LSR forwarding ECMP Prefix SID with high depth stack , implementations are not ready now to perform IP inspection when stack depth is high Forwarding plane LSR : SR to LDP traffic through mapping server  Forwarding plane LSR : LDP to SR traffic through mapping server  Forwarding plane LER IP VPN (v4&v6) service over SR  Forwarding plane LER Ethernet VPN (VPLS, VPWS, VPWS+Fat PWE) over SR  Forwarding plane LER IP (v4&6PE) service over SR  Forwarding plane LER : LDP as default transport protocol  Forwarding plane LER : transport protocol preference change to SR 
  33. 33. 33 Summary of tests Category Test Fast reroute TILFA, post-convergence path is LFA  Fast reroute TILFA, post-convergence path has a PQ  Fast reroute TILFA, post-convergence path has disjoints P Q nodes  Fast reroute TI LFA, P and Q disjoints, ECMP to P  Fast reroute TI LFA, P and Q disjoints, ECMP between P and Q  load sharing is done by programming different Adj-SID for each prefix Fast reroute TI LFA protection of IP destinations  works only if prefix has a SID through Mapping Server Fast reroute TI LFA protection of LDP traffic  Fast reroute TI LFA , different P and Q for each destination  Fast reroute TI LFA protecting SR, and fallback to LFA for non SR prefixes  Fast reroute TI LFA protecting SR, and fallback to rLFA for non SR prefixes  Fast reroute TI LFA protecting SR, and fallback to LFA for P non SR compliant  Fast reroute rLFA using SR  Fast reroute PLR Cisco, P Cisco, Q ALU  Fast reroute PLR Cisco, P ALU, Q ALU  Fast reroute PLR Cisco, P Juniper, Q Cisco 
  • SherifGuirguis2

    Nov. 28, 2017

This is a presentation done at MPLS SDN congress in March 2015 about Segment Routing interoperability testings

Views

Total views

1,175

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

140

Actions

Downloads

227

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

1

×