20111110 - CHT - TL - 教育訓練 Day5

Day 5
MPLS Foundamentals
Johnson Liu
johnsonl@juniper.net reserved. 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights
| www.juniper.net
Nov. 10, 2011
MPLS Fundamentals
2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. | www.juniper.net
IGP Metric-Based Forwarding

IGP Forwarding
Traffic is routed based on the IGPs best path selection Traffic that is destined for networks attached to R6 and R7 uses the same path
R3 R6
R1 1
R2
R5
1 1 R7
2 R4
2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.juniper.net | 3
Downsides of IGP Metric-Based Forwarding

Redirecting traffic from R1, destined for R7, to traverse R4 causes traffic destined to R6 to use R4 also
This redirecting of traffic causes some of your links to be underutilized, while others are overutilized
R3 R6
R1 1
R2
R5
2 R4
1 R7
www.juniper.net | 4
Additional Drawbacks of IGP Metrics

Adjusting the IGP metric might destabilize the network
Moves the problem to another section of the network
Some of the links will be underutilized Some of the links will be congested and overutilized
Lacks control
All traffic flows over the IGP shortest path
www.juniper.net | 5
Internet Growth Required Changes

ATM switched networks also known as an Overlay Network Benefits of using ATM
ATM switches offered performance and predictable behavior Virtual circuits (VCs) could be reengineered without physical network changes. Traffic statistics on a per-VC basis
Downsides of ATM
Maintain separate infrastructure ATM cell overhead (1 cell = 5 bytes
Header + 48 bytes payload)
Scalability issues Not well integrated

ATM IP
www.juniper.net | 6
Additional Options for Connecting Sites

Frame Relay networks
Benefits of using Frame Relay
Uses virtual circuits (VCs) to move traffic to its destination Uses Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI) number to separate VCs Built in Congestion Control (DE, FECN, BECN)
Downsides of Frame Relay

Maintain separate infrastructure
FR IP
www.juniper.net | 7
Traditional IP Routing
Destination-based routing lookup is needed on every hop
www.juniper.net | 8
MPLS Example
MPLS core routers swap labels and forward packets based on simple label lookups MPLS edge routers also perform a routing table lookup, and add or remove labels
2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. www.juniper.net | 9
MPLS Benefits
MPLS support multiple applications
Fixed label lookup faster than IP routing
MPLS support forwarding non-IP protocols
MPLS VPN solve overlapping intranet IP problem
www.juniper.net | 10
Benefits of MPLS (1 of 2)
Some benefits of MPLS include:
Improved route lookup time by using labels to forward traffic Increased scalability Additional control over how traffic moves through the network using traffic engineering (TE)
LSP A R3 R6
LSP B
R1 1 1 R4 R2 1 3 R5 1
1 R7
Benefits of MPLS (2 of 2)
Service Providers can offer different technologies like ATM, Frame Relay, Ethernet, and IPsec over the same infrastructure
Site 6 ATM-LSP Frame Relay LSP R2 Core Infrastructure R1 ATM R6 R3 R4 R5 ATM Site 2
Site 1
Site 3
Site 5
Site 4
Labeled Packets
MPLS is often referred to as a "Layer 2.5" protocol.
MPLS Header information

The MPLS packet header
MPLS header is prepended to packet with a push operation at ingress node Label is added immediately after Layer 2 encapsulation header
L2 Header MPLS Header Data
32-Bit MPLS shim Header
Packet is restored at the end of the LSP with a pop operation Normally the label stack is popped at the penultimate ( ) router
MPLS Shim Header Structure

MPLS shim header consist of four fields
Labelused to associate packet with an LSP (Label Switched Path) Experimental(EXP) bitscarry packet queuing priority (Class of Service, CoS) Bottom of Stacking bit Time to live (TTL)limits packet lifetime within LSP
In most cases, the IP TTL is copied into the MPLS TTL
Label (20 bits) CoS S TTL
L2 Header
MPLS Header
32 bits
Data
MPLS Label Stack
The PID(0x8847=MPLS unicast packets) in a layer 2 header specifies that the payload starts with a label followed by an IP header The bottom-of-stack bit(S bit) indicates whether the label is the last label in the stack The receiving router uses the top label only
MPLS Labels
Key things to remember about labels:
Labels can be assigned manually or by a signaling protocol in each LSR during path setup Label values will change at each segment in the path The LSR(Label Switch Router) will swap incoming label with new unique outgoing label MPLS Labels only have local significance
Reserved Labels
Label values 0 through 15 are currently reserved
0 = IPv4Explicit NULL 1 = Router Alert Label 2 = IPv6 Explicit NULL 3 = Implicit NULL (default) 4 through 15 = for future use
Label Information Base (LIB)

Label Information Base
The LIB is stored in the mpls.0 table
The mpls.0 table is automatically created, with label values for 0, 1, and 2, when you configure the MPLS protocol This table is used by transit routers to make forwarding decisions The mpls.0 table maps the incoming labels with the outgoing label and next hop to forward the packets
user@R3> show route table mpls.0
mpls.0: 4 destinations, 4 routes (4 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 0 1 2 1000050 Incoming Label *[MPLS/0] 01:13:17, Receive *[MPLS/0] 01:13:17, Receive *[MPLS/0] 01:13:17, Receive *[MPLS/6] 01:13:16, > to 172.20.100.14 metric 1 metric 1 metric 1 Outgoing Label
metric 1 via ge-1/0/6.0, Swap 1000515

Label-Switching Routers
Label-switching router (LSR) performs:
- MPLS packet forwarding - LSP setup
Label-Switching Routers (LSR)

The LSR performs:
MPLS packet forwarding LSP setup
All M Series Routers, T Series Routers, and MX Series Ethernet Services Routers support LSR capabilities
Simply called routers in this material
LSP A
LSR
R3
R6
R1
R2
R5
R4
R7
Label-Switched Path (LSP)

LSP
Unidirectional path through network Generally within a single MPLS domain
LSP A
R3
R6
LSP
R1 R2 R5
R4
R7
MPLS Router Functions: Ingress

Ingress router
Packets enter LSP at ingress Also called a head-end router Upstream from other routers Performs label push operation
LSP A R3 R6
Ingress
R1 R2 R5
R4
R7
label push
Layer 2 1000050 COS S TTL Data FCS
MPLS Router Functions: Transit

Transit router
There can be zero or more transit routers Perform label swap operations Forward traffic to next hop in LSP
Transit
LSP A R3 R6
R1
R2
R5
R4
R7
label swap
Layer 2 1000515 COS S TTL Data FCS
MPLS Router Functions: Penultimate

Penultimate router
Second-to-last router Normally pops the label stack Unlabeled packets sent to egress
LSP A R3
Penultimate
R5
R6
R1
R2
R4
R7
label pop
Layer 2
Data
FCS
MPLS Router Functions: Egress

Egress router
Packets exit LSP at egress Also called tail-end router Downstream from other routers Forwards packets based on IP address
LSP A R3 R6
Egress
R1
R2
R5
R4
R7
Layer 2
Data
FCS
Label Stacking
Label stacking improves scalability
- Similar to ATMs VP and VC hierarchy

2) Packet enters RSVP engineered core with RSVP label push
3) Packet leaves outer tunnel with RSVP label pop
1) Packet enters LDP tunnel with LDP label push
4) Packet restored with LDP label pop

5) Packet leaves MPLS domain
PE 1
P PE 2
Outer Tunnel (RSVP-signaled LSP) Inner Tunnel (LDP-signaled LSP)

MPLS SIGNALING (LDP vs RSVP)
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
LDP Signaling Overview

Upstream LDP peer Hello messages TCP Session Establishment Initialization Messages Label Request Messages Label Mapping Messages Advertisement
Downstream LDP peer
Discovery
Session
LDP messages types

Discovery: Locate potential LDP peers Session: Manage peer-to-peer TCP sessions Advertisement: Create, change, or delete label mappings Notification: Provide advisory information
Label Assignment
FEC: 10.0.0.1/32 Label: 35 FEC: 10.0.0.1/32 Label: 17
LSR
FEC: 10.0.0.1/32 Label: 52
FEC: 10.0.0.1/32 Label: 29
fe-0/0/2
so-0/0/1
so-0/0/1
so-0/0/3
so-0/0/3
at-0/2/0
MPLS Table
In (fe-0/0/2, 35) Out (so-0/0/1, 17)
Advertise Incoming Label

In
MPLS Table
Out
Receive Outgoing Label

In
MPLS Table
Out (at-0/2/0, 29) (so-0/0/3, 52)
(so-0/0/1, 17)
(so-0/0/3, 52)
LDP label mapping: Downstream peer assigns labels Benefits:
Traffic engineering information is not piggybacked on routing protocols
Limitations:
LSPs follow the conventional IGP path Does not support explicit routing
Hello-Based Neighbor Discovery

Router A
Basic Discovery
224.0.0.2, UDP port 646 Extended Discovery
Router B
Specific Address, UDP port 646
Neighbor discovery is asymmetric process

Respond only if LDP session is desired
Active node has the higher IP address

Transport address takes precedence over source address
LDP Session Establishment

Router A (Passive)
10.0.1.1
TCP 3-way Handshake
Router B (Active)
10.0.1.2
Session Initialization
(Version, Label modes, Timer Values)
Session Initialization
(Version, Label modes, Timer Values)
Keepalives
Active Node initiates TCP session

LDP Session initiated after TCP session established
LDP Session Maintenance

LDP session requires at least 1 hello adjacency
Hello interval: 5-second default

Hold timer: 15-second default
If hold timer expires, LSR deletes hello adjacency Can be asymmetric
Transport address selection:

Interface address Router ID
LDP Tunneling Through RSVP-TE LSP

Router A Router B
LDP
R7 RSVP R8
LDP
[edit] lab@r7# show protocols mpls label-switched-path test { to 10.0.6.1; ldp-tunneling; no-cspf; } interface all;
MPLS Terminology
Connection Table
IP 25
Port 1
Port 2
In (port, label)
Out (port, label)
Label Operation
(1, 22) (1, 24)

Port 3 Port 4
(2, 17) (3, 17) (4, 19)
Swap Swap Swap Swap
IP 19
(1, 25)
(2, 23)
(3, 12)
Label Swapping
Connection table maintains mappings Exact match lookup Input (port, label) determines: Label operation Output (port, label)
MPLS Forwarding Example

MPLS Table
In (2, 84) Out (6, 0)
134.5.6.1
134.5.1.5
2
200.3.2.7
6
Egress Routing Table
Destination 134.5/16 200.3.2/24 Next Hop 134.5.6.1 200.3.2.1
2
3
Ingress Routing Table

Destination 134.5/16 200.3.2/24 Next Hop (2, 84) (3, 99)
5
200.3.2.7
MPLS Table
In (1, 99) Out (2, 56)
MPLS Table
In (3, 56) Out (5, 0)
200.3.2.1
200.3.2.7
LDP over RSVP LSP

LDP neighbor relationships between:
A and B via the physical interface B and E via bi-directional RSVP LSPs E and F via the physical interface
RTR-B performs a swap and push operation

Swap label 583 for label 101 (advertised by E) Push label 106 (advertised by C)
LDP over RSVP(T-LDP)

PE1 P1 P2
101
P3
P4
PE2
583
LDP
106
150
RSVP
*3
*3
LDP
106 583 IP 101 IP
150 101 IP 101 IP IP
*Note: Label 3 = implicit null
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
Basic RSVP Path/Resv signaling

Unidirectional flows Ingress router initiates connection Soft state Path and resources are maintained dynamically Can change during the life of the RSVP session Path message (containing label-request object) sent downstream Resv message (containing label object) sent upstream
Label request object
PATH
PATH
PATH
PATH
PATH
R4
Label object
RESV
R3
Label object
RESV
R2
Label object
RESV
R1
Label object
RESV
R5
Label object
RESV
R6
1004
5341
4711
2477
RSVP Signaling Example: Path

RSVP sets up path from San Francisco to New York
Seattle New York (Egress)
San Francisco (Ingress) Miami
RSVP Signaling Example: Reservation

The RESV message visits each router on the path in reverse order labels assigned hop to hop in the upstream direction
Seattle New York (Egress)
3
San Francisco (Ingress) Miami
LSP Established!
Traffic Engineering (TE)
What is traffic engineering?
A major goal of Internet Traffic Engineering is to facilitate efficient and reliable network operations while simultaneously optimizing network resource utilization and performance
RFC 2702, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS
IGP Metric-Based Forwarding

Traffic sent to A or B follows path with lowest metrics
A
1
Drawbacks of IGP Metric Forwarding

Redirecting traffic flow to A via C causes traffic for B to move also!
- Some links become underutilized or overutilized
A
1
Additional Drawbacks of IGP Metrics

Adjusting an IGP metric might destabilize the network
- Moves problem around
Some links underutilized Some links overutilized
- Lacks control All traffic flows via the IGP shortest path
Constraint-Based Path Computation

Constraint-based routing is demand-driven. Resource-reservation-aware routing paradigm:
- Based on criteria including, but not limited to, network topology - Calculated at the edge of a network:
Modified Dijkstras algorithm at tunnel headend (CSPF [Constraintbased SPF]). Output is a sequence of IP interface addresses (next-hop routers) between tunnel endpoints.
Constraint-based routing takes into account:

Using the least-cost path computed by OSPF or IS-IS Policy constraints associated with the tunnel and physical links Physical resource availability Network topology state
IGP-Based Traffic Engineering

Standard IGP routing IP prefixes are bound to a physical next hop
- Typically based on IGP view of shortest path
30M 30M
IGP Shortest Path
50M 30M 30M 30M

San Francisco New York
50M
192.168.1/24 134.112/16
30M 30M
MPLS-Based Traffic Engineering

Engineer unidirectional paths through your network without using the IGPs shortest path calculation
50M (10M available) 30M (5M available)
IGP Shortest Path New York
San Francisco
30M (25M available) 30M (20M available)
30M (20M available)

RSVP Traffic Engineered Path (Need 20M)
Fast Reroute schemes supported in JUNOS

1. One-to-one backup 2. Facility backup
Two variants:

Separate backup LSP (called Detour LSP) for each LSP that requires protection Bypass Tunnel created to protect a given facility (a link or a node). Multiple LSPs can share the same bypass tunnel.
Link protection Node protection
The schemes are described in RFC 4090 Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4090.txt
Comparison of FRR schemes

R8 R9 R10
R14
R11
R1
R2
R7
LSP Y
LSP X
LSP Z
R3
R4
R5
R6
R13
Facility protection, Link protection variant

R8 R9 R10
Shared bypass tunnel

R14 R11 R1
R2
R7
LSP Y
LSP X
LSP Z
R3
R4
R5
R6
R13
R1 computes and signals a single bypass tunnel to the next-hop node, R2, that avoids the R1-R2 link. The bypass tunnel can be shared between all LSPs using R1->R2 link, if desired. Merge point is R2.
Facility protection, Node protection variant

R8 R9 R10
Shared bypass tunnel

R14 R11 R1
R2 R7
LSP Y
LSP X
LSP Z
R3
R4
R5
R6
R13
R1 computes and signals bypass tunnel(s) to the next-next-hop node(s) which avoids R1-R2 link and R2 itself. Same bypass tunnel can be shared between all LSPs that pass from R1 to R2 and have the same next-next-hop. In the example, the 3 LSPs have the same nextnext-hop so only one bypass was needed to protect R2.
FRR 1:1 protection

R8 R9 R10
Detour LSP for LSP Z Detour LSP for LSP Y

R1
R2
Detour LSP for LSP X

R7
R14
R11
LSP Y
LSP X
LSP Z
R3
R4
R5
R6
R13
Separate detour LSP for each protected LSP. 1:1 protection always protects downstream link and downstream node.
Case study 1 Facility protection: Link Protection

BR: Border Router CR: Core Router
CR
CR
BR
CR
CR
BR
BR
CR
CR
BR
MPLS Core
When one backbone link disconnect, it will compute and signal a single bypass tunnel to the next-hop node. The bypass tunnel can be shared between all LSPs. One of the CR will need to carry all traffic of all LSP when failure occurs.
Case study 2 1:1 FRR

BR: Border Router CR: Core Router
CR
CR
BR
CR
CR
BR
BR
CR
CR
BR
MPLS Core
Separate detour LSP for each protected LSP. 1:1 protection can help network admin to load share between different path and node resource when detouring LSP generated.

20111110 - CHT - TL - 教育訓練 Day5

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

20111110 - CHT - TL - 教育訓練 Day5

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Day 5

Nov. 10, 2011

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. | www.juniper.net

IGP Metric-Based Forwarding

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Downsides of IGP Metric-Based Forwarding

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Additional Drawbacks of IGP Metrics

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Internet Growth Required Changes

Scalability issues Not well integrated

Additional Options for Connecting Sites

Downsides of Frame Relay

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Destination-based routing lookup is needed on every hop

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Fixed label lookup faster than IP routing

MPLS support forwarding non-IP protocols

MPLS VPN solve overlapping intranet IP problem

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MPLS is often referred to as a "Layer 2.5" protocol.

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MPLS Header information

32-Bit MPLS shim Header

MPLS Shim Header Structure

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MPLS Label Stack

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Label Information Base (LIB)

user@R3> show route table mpls.0

metric 1 via ge-1/0/6.0, Swap 1000515

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Label-Switching Routers (LSR)

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Label-Switched Path (LSP)

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MPLS Router Functions: Ingress

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MPLS Router Functions: Transit

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

MPLS Router Functions: Penultimate

MPLS Router Functions: Egress

- Similar to ATMs VP and VC hierarchy

3) Packet leaves outer tunnel with RSVP label pop

1) Packet enters LDP tunnel with LDP label push

4) Packet restored with LDP label pop

Outer Tunnel (RSVP-signaled LSP) Inner Tunnel (LDP-signaled LSP)

MPLS SIGNALING (LDP vs RSVP)

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. | www.juniper.net

Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

LDP Signaling Overview

Downstream LDP peer

LDP messages types

2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

FEC: 10.0.0.1/32 Label: 52

FEC: 10.0.0.1/32 Label: 29

Advertise Incoming Label

Receive Outgoing Label