Routing Area Working Group G. Enyedi, Ed.
Internet-Draft A. Csaszar
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: August 18, 2014 A. Atlas, Ed.
C. Bowers
Juniper Networks
A. Gopalan
University of Arizona
February 14, 2014
Algorithms for computing Maximally Redundant Trees for IP/LDP Fast-
Reroute
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-00
Abstract
A complete solution for IP and LDP Fast-Reroute using Maximally
Redundant Trees is presented in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-
architecture]. This document defines the associated MRT Lowpoint
algorithm that is used in the default MRT profile to compute both the
necessary Maximally Redundant Trees with their associated next-hops
and the alternates to select for MRT-FRR.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
(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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Algorithm Key Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Partial Ordering for Disjoint Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Finding an Ear and the Correct Direction . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Low-Point Values and Their Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Blocks in a Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5. Determining Local-Root and Assigning Block-ID . . . . . . 17
5. Algorithm Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. MRT Island Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. Root Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3. Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4. MRT Lowpoint Algorithm: Computing GADAG using lowpoint
inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.5. Augmenting the GADAG by directing all links . . . . . . . 24
5.6. Compute MRT next-hops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.6.1. MRT next-hops to all nodes partially ordered with
respect to the computing node . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.6.2. MRT next-hops to all nodes not partially ordered with
respect to the computing node . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.6.3. Computing Redundant Tree next-hops in a 2-connected
Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.6.4. Generalizing for graph that isn't 2-connected . . . . 30
5.6.5. Complete Algorithm to Compute MRT Next-Hops . . . . . 31
5.7. Identify MRT alternates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.8. Finding FRR Next-Hops for Proxy-Nodes . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. MRT Lowpoint Algorithm: Complete Specification . . . . . . . 40
7. Algorithm Alternatives and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7.1. Algorithm Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8. Algorithm Work to Be Done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix A. Option 2: Computing GADAG using SPFs . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix B. Option 3: Computing GADAG using a hybrid method . . 58
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1. Introduction
MRT Fast-Reroute requires that packets can be forwarded not only on
the shortest-path tree, but also on two Maximally Redundant Trees
(MRTs), referred to as the MRT-Blue and the MRT-Red. A router which
experiences a local failure must also have pre-determined which
alternate to use. This document defines how to compute these three
things for use in MRT-FRR and describes the algorithm design
decisions and rationale. The algorithm is based on those presented
in [MRTLinear] and expanded in [EnyediThesis]. The MRT Lowpoint
algorithm is required for implementation when the default MRT profile
is implemented.
Just as packets routed on a hop-by-hop basis require that each router
compute a shortest-path tree which is consistent, it is necessary for
each router to compute the MRT-Blue next-hops and MRT-Red next-hops
in a consistent fashion. This document defines the MRT Lowpoint
algorithm to be used as a standard in the default MRT profile for
MRT-FRR.
As now, a router's FIB will contain primary next-hops for the current
shortest-path tree for forwarding traffic. In addition, a router's
FIB will contain primary next-hops for the MRT-Blue for forwarding
received traffic on the MRT-Blue and primary next-hops for the MRT-
Red for forwarding received traffic on the MRT-Red.
What alternate next-hops a point-of-local-repair (PLR) selects need
not be consistent - but loops must be prevented. To reduce
congestion, it is possible for multiple alternate next-hops to be
selected; in the context of MRT alternates, each of those alternate
next-hops would be equal-cost paths.
This document defines an algorithm for selecting an appropriate MRT
alternate for consideration. Other alternates, e.g. LFAs that are
downstream paths, may be prefered when available and that policy-
based alternate selection process[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability]
is not captured in this document.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
[E]---[D]---| [E]<--[D]<--| [E]-->[D]
| | | | ^ | |
| | | V | | V
[R] [F] [C] [R] [F] [C] [R] [F] [C]
| | | ^ ^ | |
| | | | | V |
[A]---[B]---| [A]-->[B] [A]---[B]<--|
(a) (b) (c)
a 2-connected graph MRT-Blue towards R MRT-Red towards R
Figure 1
Algorithms for computing MRTs can handle arbitrary network topologies
where the whole network graph is not 2-connected, as in Figure 2, as
well as the easier case where the network graph is 2-connected
(Figure 1). Each MRT is a spanning tree. The pair of MRTs provide
two paths from every node X to the root of the MRTs. Those paths
share the minimum number of nodes and the minimum number of links.
Each such shared node is a cut-vertex. Any shared links are cut-
links.
[E]---[D]---| |---[J]
| | | | |
| | | | |
[R] [F] [C]---[G] |
| | | | |
| | | | |
[A]---[B]---| |---[H]
(a) a graph that isn't 2-connected
[E]<--[D]<--| [J] [E]-->[D]---| |---[J]
| ^ | | | | | ^
V | | | V V V |
[R] [F] [C]<--[G] | [R] [F] [C]<--[G] |
^ ^ ^ | ^ | | |
| | | V | V | |
[A]-->[B]---| |---[H] [A]<--[B]<--| [H]
(b) MRT-Blue towards R (c) MRT-Red towards R
Figure 2
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
3. Terminology and Definitions
network graph: A graph that reflects the network topology where all
links connect exactly two nodes and broadcast links have been
transformed into a pseudo-node representation (e.g. in OSPF,
viewing a Network LSA as representing a pseudo-noe).
Redundant Trees (RT): A pair of trees where the path from any node X
to the root R on the first tree is node-disjoint with the path
from the same node X to the root along the second tree. These can
be computed in 2-connected graphs.
Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT): A pair of trees where the path
from any node X to the root R along the first tree and the path
from the same node X to the root along the second tree share the
minimum number of nodes and the minimum number of links. Each
such shared node is a cut-vertex. Any shared links are cut-links.
Any RT is an MRT but many MRTs are not RTs.
MRT Island: From the computing router, the set of routers that
support a particular MRT profile and are connected.
MRT-Red: MRT-Red is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
used to describe the associated forwarding topology and MT-ID.
Specifically, MRT-Red is the decreasing MRT where links in the
GADAG are taken in the direction from a higher topologically
ordered node to a lower one.
MRT-Blue: MRT-Blue is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
used to describe the associated forwarding topology and MT-ID.
Specifically, MRT-Blue is the increasing MRT where links in the
GADAG are taken in the direction from a lower topologically
ordered node to a higher one.
cut-vertex: A vertex whose removal partitions the network.
cut-link: A link whose removal partitions the network. A cut-link
by definition must be connected between two cut-vertices. If
there are multiple parallel links, then they are referred to as
cut-links in this document if removing the set of parallel links
would partition the network.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
2-connected: A graph that has no cut-vertices. This is a graph
that requires two nodes to be removed before the network is
partitioned.
spanning tree: A tree containing links that connects all nodes in
the network graph.
back-edge: In the context of a spanning tree computed via a depth-
first search, a back-edge is a link that connects a descendant of
a node x with an ancestor of x.
2-connected cluster: A maximal set of nodes that are 2-connected.
In a network graph with at least one cut-vertex, there will be
multiple 2-connected clusters.
block: Either a 2-connected cluster, a cut-link, or an isolated
vertex.
DAG: Directed Acyclic Graph - a digraph containing no directed
cycle.
ADAG: Almost Directed Acyclic Graph - a digraph that can be
transformed into a DAG with removing a single node (the root
node).
partial ADAG: A subset of an ADAG that doesn't yet contain all the
nodes in the block. A partial ADAG is created during the MRT
algorithm and then expanded until all nodes in the block are
included and it is an ADAG.
GADAG: Generalized ADAG - a digraph, which has only ADAGs as all of
its blocks. The root of such a block is the node closest to the
global root (e.g. with uniform link costs).
DFS: Depth-First Search
DFS ancestor: A node n is a DFS ancestor of x if n is on the DFS-
tree path from the DFS root to x.
DFS descendant: A node n is a DFS descendant of x if x is on the
DFS-tree path from the DFS root to n.
ear: A path along not-yet-included-in-the-GADAG nodes that starts
at a node that is already-included-in-the-GADAG and that ends at a
node that is already-included-in-the-GADAG. The starting and
ending nodes may be the same node if it is a cut-vertex.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
X >> Y or Y << X: Indicates the relationship between X and Y in a
partial order, such as found in a GADAG. X >> Y means that X is
higher in the partial order than Y. Y << X means that Y is lower
in the partial order than X.
X > Y or Y < X: Indicates the relationship between X and Y in the
total order, such as found via a topological sort. X > Y means
that X is higher in the total order than Y. Y < X means that Y is
lower in the total order than X.
proxy-node: A node added to the network graph to represent a multi-
homed prefix or routers outside the local MRT-fast-reroute-
supporting island of routers. The key property of proxy-nodes is
that traffic cannot transit them.
UNDIRECTED: In the GADAG, each link is marked as OUTGOING, INCOMING
or both. Until the directionality of the link is determined, the
link is marked as UNDIRECTED to indicate that its direction hasn't
been determined.
OUTGOING: In the GADAG, each link is marked as OUTGOING, INCOMING
or both. A link marked as OUTGOING has direction from the
interface's router to the remote end.
INCOMING: In the GADAG, each link is marked as OUTGOING, INCOMING
or both. A link marked as INCOMING has direction from the remote
end to the interface's router.
4. Algorithm Key Concepts
There are five key concepts that are critical for understanding the
MRT Lowpoint algorithm and other algorithms for computing MRTs. The
first is the idea of partially ordering the nodes in a network graph
with regard to each other and to the GADAG root. The second is the
idea of finding an ear of nodes and adding them in the correct
direction. The third is the idea of a Low-Point value and how it can
be used to identify cut-vertices and to find a second path towards
the root. The fourth is the idea that a non-2-connected graph is
made up of blocks, where a block is a 2-connected cluster, a cut-link
or an isolated node. The fifth is the idea of a local-root for each
node; this is used to compute ADAGs in each block.
4.1. Partial Ordering for Disjoint Paths
Given any two nodes X and Y in a graph, a particular total order
means that either X < Y or X > Y in that total order. An example
would be a graph where the nodes are ranked based upon their unique
IP loopback addresses. In a partial order, there may be some nodes
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
for which it can't be determined whether X << Y or X >> Y. A partial
order can be captured in a directed graph, as shown in Figure 3. In
a graphical representation, a link directed from X to Y indicates
that X is a neighbor of Y in the network graph and X << Y.
[A]<---[R] [E] R << A << B << C << D << E
| ^ R << A << B << F << G << H << D << E
| |
V | Unspecified Relationships:
[B]--->[C]--->[D] C and F
| ^ C and G
| | C and H
V |
[F]--->[G]--->[H]
Figure 3: Directed Graph showing a Partial Order
To compute MRTs, the root of the MRTs is at both the very bottom and
the very top of the partial ordering. This means that from any node
X, one can pick nodes higher in the order until the root is reached.
Similarly, from any node X, one can pick nodes lower in the order
until the root is reached. For instance, in Figure 4, from G the
higher nodes picked can be traced by following the directed links and
are H, D, E and R. Similarly, from G the lower nodes picked can be
traced by reversing the directed links and are F, B, A, and R. A
graph that represents this modified partial order is no longer a DAG;
it is termed an Almost DAG (ADAG) because if the links directed to
the root were removed, it would be a DAG.
[A]<---[R]<---[E] R << A << B << C << R
| ^ ^ R << A << B << C << D << E << R
| | | R << A << B << F << G << H << D << E << R
V | |
[B]--->[C]--->[D] Unspecified Relationships:
| ^ C and F
| | C and G
V | C and H
[F]--->[G]--->[H]
Figure 4: ADAG showing a Partial Order with R lowest and highest
Most importantly, if a node Y >> X, then Y can only appear on the
increasing path from X to the root and never on the decreasing path.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Similarly, if a node Z << X, then Z can only appear on the decreasing
path from X to the root and never on the inceasing path.
When following the increasing paths, it is possible to pick multiple
higher nodes and still have the certainty that those paths will be
disjoint from the decreasing paths. E.g. in the previous example
node B has multiple possibilities to forward packets along an
increasing path: it can either forward packets to C or F.
4.2. Finding an Ear and the Correct Direction
For simplicity, the basic idea of creating a GADAG by adding ears is
described assuming that the network graph is a single 2-connected
cluster so that an ADAG is sufficient. Generalizing to multiple
blocks is done by considering the block-roots instead of the GADAG
root - and the actual algorithm is given in Section 5.4.
In order to understand the basic idea of finding an ADAG, first
suppose that we have already a partial ADAG, which doesn't contain
all the nodes in the block yet, and we want to extend it to cover all
the nodes. Suppose that we find a path from a node X to Y such that
X and Y are already contained by our partial ADAG, but all the
remaining nodes along the path are not added to the ADAG yet. We
refer to such a path as an ear.
Recall that our ADAG is closely related to a partial order, more
precisely, if we remove root R, the remaining DAG describes a partial
order of the nodes. If we suppose that neither X nor Y is the root,
we may be able to compare them. If one of them is definitely lesser
with respect to our partial order (say X<B---| A-->B---|
(a) (b) (c)
(a) A 2-connected graph
(b) Partial ADAG (C is not included)
(c) Resulting ADAG after adding path (or ear) B-C-D
Figure 5
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
In this partial ADAG, node C is not yet included. However, we can
find path B-C-D, where both endpoints are contained by this partial
ADAG (we say those nodes are *ready* in the sequel), and the
remaining node (node C) is not contained yet. If we remove R, the
remaining DAG defines a partial order, and with respect to this
partial order we can say that B<C and C->D are added). If
B >> D, we would add the same path in reverse direction.
If in the partial order where an ear's two ends are X and Y, X << Y,
then there must already be a directed path from X to Y in the ADAG.
The ear must be added in a direction such that it doesn't create a
cycle; therefore the ear must go from X to Y.
In the case, when X and Y are not ordered with each other, we can
select either direction for the ear. We have no restriction since
neither of the directions can result in a cycle. In the corner case
when one of the endpoints of an ear, say X, is the root (recall that
the two endpoints must be different), we could use both directions
again for the ear because the root can be considered both as smaller
and as greater than Y. However, we strictly pick that direction in
which the root is lower than Y. The logic for this decision is
explained in Section 5.6
A partial ADAG is started by finding a cycle from the root R back to
itself. This can be done by selecting a non-ready neighbor N of R
and then finding a path from N to R that doesn't use any links
between R and N. The direction of the cycle can be assigned either
way since it is starting the ordering.
Once a partial ADAG is already present, it will always have a node
that is not the root R in it. As a brief proof that a partial ADAG
can always have ears added to it: just select a non-ready neighbor N
of a ready node Q, such that Q is not the root R, find a path from N
to the root R in the graph with Q removed. This path is an ear where
the first node of the ear is Q, the next is N, then the path until
the first ready node the path reached (that second ready node is the
other endpoint of the path). Since the graph is 2-connected, there
must be a path from N to R without Q.
It is always possible to select a non-ready neighbor N of a ready
node Q so that Q is not the root R. Because the network is
2-connected, N must be connected to two different nodes and only one
can be R. Because the initial cycle has already been added to the
ADAG, there are ready nodes that are not R. Since the graph is
2-connected, while there are non-ready nodes, there must be a non-
ready neighbor N of a ready node that is not R.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Generic_Find_Ears_ADAG(root)
Create an empty ADAG. Add root to the ADAG.
Mark root as IN_GADAG.
Select an arbitrary cycle containing root.
Add the arbitrary cycle to the ADAG.
Mark cycle's nodes as IN_GADAG.
Add cycle's non-root nodes to process_list.
while there exists connected nodes in graph that are not IN_GADAG
Select a new ear. Let its endpoints be X and Y.
if Y is root or (Y << X)
add the ear towards X to the ADAG
else // (a) X is root or (b)X << Y or (c) X, Y not ordered
Add the ear towards Y to the ADAG
Figure 6: Generic Algorithm to find ears and their direction in
2-connected graph
Algorithm Figure 6 merely requires that a cycle or ear be selected
without specifying how. Regardless of the way of selecting the path,
we will get an ADAG. The method used for finding and selecting the
ears is important; shorter ears result in shorter paths along the
MRTs. The MRT Lowpoint algorithm's method using Low-Point
Inheritance is defined in Section 5.4. Other methods are described
in the Appendices (Appendix A and Appendix B).
As an example, consider Figure 5 again. First, we select the
shortest cycle containing R, which can be R-A-B-F-D-E (uniform link
costs were assumed), so we get to the situation depicted in Figure 5
(b). Finally, we find a node next to a ready node; that must be node
C and assume we reached it from ready node B. We search a path from C
to R without B in the original graph. The first ready node along
this is node D, so the open ear is B-C-D. Since B<C
and C->D to the ADAG. Since all the nodes are ready, we stop at this
point.
4.3. Low-Point Values and Their Uses
A basic way of computing a spanning tree on a network graph is to run
a depth-first-search, such as given in Figure 7. This tree has the
important property that if there is a link (x, n), then either n is a
DFS ancestor of x or n is a DFS descendant of x. In other words,
either n is on the path from the root to x or x is on the path from
the root to n.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
global_variable: dfs_number
DFS_Visit(node x, node parent)
D(x) = dfs_number
dfs_number += 1
x.dfs_parent = parent
for each link (x, w)
if D(w) is not set
DFS_Visit(w, x)
Run_DFS(node root)
dfs_number = 0
DFS_Visit(root, NONE)
Figure 7: Basic Depth-First Search algorithm
Given a node x, one can compute the minimal DFS number of the
neighbours of x, i.e. min( D(w) if (x,w) is a link). This gives the
highest attachment point neighbouring x. What is interesting,
though, is what is the highest attachment point from x and x's
descendants. This is what is determined by computing the Low-Point
value, as given in Algorithm Figure 9 and illustrated on a graph in
Figure 8.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
[E]---| [J]-------[I] [P]---[O]
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[R] [D]---[C]--[F] [H]---[K] [N]
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[A]--------[B] [G]---| [L]---[M]
(a) a non-2-connected graph
[E]----| [J]---------[I] [P]------[O]
(5, ) | (10, ) (9, ) (16, ) (15, )
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[R] [D]---[C]---[F] [H]----[K] [N]
(0, ) (4, ) (3, ) (6, ) (8, ) (11, ) (14, )
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[A]---------[B] [G]----| [L]------[M]
(1, ) (2, ) (7, ) (12, ) (13, )
(b) with DFS values assigned (D(x), L(x))
[E]----| [J]---------[I] [P]------[O]
(5,0) | (10,3) (9,3) (16,11) (15,11)
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[R] [D]---[C]---[F] [H]----[K] [N]
(0, ) (4,0) (3,0) (6,3) (8,3) (11,11) (14,11)
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[A]---------[B] [G]----| [L]------[M]
(1,0) (2,0) (7,3) (12,11) (13,11)
(c) with low-point values assigned (D(x), L(x))
Figure 8
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
global_variable: dfs_number
Lowpoint_Visit(node x, node parent, interface p_to_x)
D(x) = dfs_number
L(x) = D(x)
dfs_number += 1
x.dfs_parent = parent
x.dfs_parent_intf = p_to_x
x.lowpoint_parent = NONE
for each interface intf of x:
if D(intf.remote_node) is not set
Lowpoint_Visit(intf.remote_node, x, intf)
if L(intf.remote_node) < L(x)
L(x) = L(intf.remote_node)
x.lowpoint_parent = intf.remote_node
x.lowpoint_parent_intf = intf
else if intf.remote_node is not parent
if D(intf.remote_node) < L(x)
L(x) = D(intf.remote)
x.lowpoint_parent = intf.remote_node
x.lowpoint_parent_intf = intf
Run_Lowpoint(node root)
dfs_number = 0
Lowpoint_Visit(root, NONE, NONE)
Figure 9: Computing Low-Point value
From the low-point value and lowpoint parent, there are three very
useful things which motivate our computation.
First, if there is a child c of x such that L(c) >= D(x), then there
are no paths in the network graph that go from c or its descendants
to an ancestor of x - and therefore x is a cut-vertex. In Figure 8,
this can be seen by looking at the DFS children of C. C has two
children - D and F and L(F) = 3 = D(C) so it is clear that C is a
cut-vertex and F is in a block where C is the block's root. L(D) = 0
> 3 = D(C) so D has a path to the ancestors of C; in this case, D can
go via E to reach R. Comparing the low-point values of all a node's
DFS-children with the node's DFS-value is very useful because it
allows identification of the cut-vertices and thus the blocks.
Second, by repeatedly following the path given by lowpoint_parent,
there is a path from x back to an ancestor of x that does not use the
link [x, x.dfs_parent] in either direction. The full path need not
be taken, but this gives a way of finding an initial cycle and then
ears.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Third, as seen in Figure 8, even if L(x) < D(x), there may be a block
that contains both the root and a DFS-child of a node while other
DFS-children might be in different blocks. In this example, C's
child D is in the same block as R while F is not. It is important to
realize that the root of a block may also be the root of another
block.
4.4. Blocks in a Graph
A key idea for an MRT algorithm is that any non-2-connected graph is
made up by blocks (e.g. 2-connected clusters, cut-links, and/or
isolated nodes). To compute GADAGs and thus MRTs, computation is
done in each block to compute ADAGs or Redundant Trees and then those
ADAGs or Redundant Trees are combined into a GADAG or MRT.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
[E]---| [J]-------[I] [P]---[O]
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[R] [D]---[C]--[F] [H]---[K] [N]
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
[A]--------[B] [G]---| [L]---[M]
(a) A graph with four blocks that are:
3 2-connected clusters and a cut-link
[E]<--| [J]<------[I] [P]<--[O]
| | | ^ | ^
V | V | V |
[R] [D]<--[C] [F] [H]<---[K] [N]
^ | ^ ^
| V | |
[A]------->[B] [G]---| [L]-->[M]
(b) MRT-Blue
[E]---| [J]-------->[I] [P]-->[O]
| | |
V V V
[R] [D]-->[C]<---[F] [H]<---[K] [N]
^ | ^ | ^ |
| V | | | V
[A]<-------[B] [G]<--| [L]<--[M]
(c) MRT-Red
Figure 10
Consider the example depicted in Figure 10 (a). In this figure, a
special graph is presented, showing us all the ways 2-connected
clusters can be connected. It has four blocks: block 1 contains R,
A, B, C, D, E, block 2 contains C, F, G, H, I, J, block 3 contains K,
L, M, N, O, P, and block 4 is a cut-link containing H and K. As can
be observed, the first two blocks have one common node (node C) and
blocks 2 and 3 do not have any common node, but they are connected
through a cut-link that is block 4. No two blocks can have more than
one common node, since two blocks with at least 2 common nodes would
qualify as a single 2-connected cluster.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Moreover, observe that if we want to get from one block to another,
we must use a cut-vertex (the cut-vertices in this graph are C, H,
K), regardless of the path selected, so we can say that all the paths
from block 3 along the MRTs rooted at R will cross K first. This
observation means that if we want to find a pair of MRTs rooted at R,
then we need to build up a pair of RTs in block 3 with K as a root.
Similarly, we need to find another pair of RTs in block 2 with C as a
root, and finally, we need the last pair of RTs in block 1 with R as
a root. When all the trees are selected, we can simply combine them;
when a block is a cut-link (as in block 4), that cut-link is added in
the same direction to both of the trees. The resulting trees are
depicted in Figure 10 (b) and (c).
Similarly, to create a GADAG it is sufficient to compute ADAGs in
each block and connect them.
It is necessary, therefore, to identify the cut-vertices, the blocks
and identify the appropriate local-root to use for each block.
4.5. Determining Local-Root and Assigning Block-ID
Each node in a network graph has a local-root, which is the cut-
vertex (or root) in the same block that is closest to the root. The
local-root is used to determine whether two nodes share a common
block.
Compute_Localroot(node x, node localroot)
x.localroot = localroot
for each DFS child c
if L(c) < D(x) //x is not a cut-vertex
Compute_Localroot(c, x.localroot)
else
mark x as cut-vertex
Compute_Localroot(c, x)
Compute_Localroot(root, root)
Figure 11: A method for computing local-roots
There are two different ways of computing the local-root for each
node. The stand-alone method is given in Figure 11 and better
illustrates the concept; it is used by the MRT algorithms given in
the Appendices Appendix A and Appendix B. The MRT Lowpoint algorithm
computes the local-root for a block as part of computing the GADAG
using lowpoint inheritance; the essence of this computation is given
in Figure 12.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Get the current node, s.
Compute an ear(either through lowpoint inheritance
or by following dfs parents) from s to a ready node e.
(Thus, s is not e, if there is such ear.)
if s is e
for each node x in the ear that is not s
x.localroot = s
else
for each node x in the ear that is not s or e
x.localroot = e.localroot
Figure 12: Ear-based method for computing local-roots
Once the local-roots are known, two nodes X and Y are in a common
block if and only if one of the following three conditions apply.
o Y's local-root is X's local-root : They are in the same block and
neither is the cut-vertex closest to the root.
o Y's local-root is X: X is the cut-vertex closest to the root for
Y's block
o Y is X's local-root: Y is the cut-vertex closest to the root for
X's block
Once we have computed the local-root for each node in the network
graph, we can assign for each node, a block id that represents the
block in which the node is present. This computation is shown in
Figure 13.
global_var: max_block_id
Assign_Block_ID(x, cur_block_id)
x.block_id = cur_block_id
foreach DFS child c of x
if (c.local_root is x)
max_block_id += 1
Assign_Block_ID(c, max_block_id)
else
Assign_Block_ID(c, cur_block_id)
max_block_id = 0
Assign_Block_ID(root, max_block_id)
Figure 13: Assigning block id to identify blocks
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
5. Algorithm Sections
This algorithm computes one GADAG that is then used by a router to
determine its MRT-Blue and MRT-Red next-hops to all destinations.
Finally, based upon that information, alternates are selected for
each next-hop to each destination. The different parts of this
algorithm are described below. These work on a network graph after
its interfaces have been ordered as per Figure 14.
1. Compute the local MRT Island for the particular MRT Profile.
[See Section 5.1.]
2. Select the root to use for the GADAG. [See Section 5.2.]
3. Initialize all interfaces to UNDIRECTED. [See Section 5.3.]
4. Compute the DFS value,e.g. D(x), and lowpoint value, L(x). [See
Figure 9.]
5. Construct the GADAG. [See Section 5.4]
6. Assign directions to all interfaces that are still UNDIRECTED.
[See Section 5.5.]
7. From the computing router x, compute the next-hops for the MRT-
Blue and MRT-Red. [See Section 5.6.]
8. Identify alternates for each next-hop to each destination by
determining which one of the blue MRT and the red MRT the
computing router x should select. [See Section 5.7.]
To ensure consistency in computation, all routers MUST order
interfaces identically down to the set of links with the same metric
to the same neighboring node. This is necessary for the DFS, where
the selection order of the interfaces to explore results in different
trees, and for computing the GADAG, where the selection order of the
interfaces to use to form ears can result in different GADAGs. The
required ordering between two interfaces from the same router x is
given in Figure 14.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Interface_Compare(interface a, interface b)
if a.metric < b.metric
return A_LESS_THAN_B
if b.metric < a.metric
return B_LESS_THAN_A
if a.neighbor.loopback_addr < b.neighbor.loopback_addr
return A_LESS_THAN_B
if b.neighbor.loopback_addr < a.neighbor.loopback_addr
return B_LESS_THAN_A
// Same metric to same node, so the order doesn't matter anymore for
// interoperability.
// To have a unique, consistent total order,
// tie-break in OSPF based on the link's linkData as
// distributed in an OSPF Router-LSA
if a.link_data < b.link_data
return A_LESS_THAN_B
return B_LESS_THAN_A
Figure 14: Rules for ranking multiple interfaces. Order is from low
to high.
5.1. MRT Island Identification
The local MRT Island for a particular MRT profile can be determined
by starting from the computing router in the network graph and doing
a breadth-first-search (BFS), exploring only links that aren't MRT-
ineligible.
MRT_Island_Identification(topology, computing_rtr, profile_id)
for all routers in topology
rtr.IN_MRT_ISLAND = FALSE
computing_rtr.IN_MRT_ISLAND = TRUE
explore_list = { computing_rtr }
while (explore_list is not empty)
next_rtr = remove_head(explore_list)
for each interface in next_rtr
if interface is not MRT-ineligible
if ((interface.remote_node supports profile_id) and
(interface.remote_node.IN_MRT_ISLAND is FALSE))
interface.remote_node.IN_MRT_ISLAND = TRUE
add_to_tail(explore_list, interface.remote_node)
Figure 15: MRT Island Identification
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
5.2. Root Selection
In Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture], the GADAG Root
Selection is described for the MRT default profile. In
[I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt] and [I-D.li-isis-mrt], a mechanism is given for
routers to advertise the GADAG Root Selection Priority and
consistently select a GADAG Root inside the local MRT Island. The
MRT Lowpoint algorithm simply requires that all routers in the MRT
Island MUST select the same GADAG Root; the mechanism can vary based
upon the MRT profile description. Before beginning computation, the
network graph is reduced to contain only the set of routers that
support the specific MRT profile whose MRTs are being computed.
Analysis has shown that the centrality of a router can have a
significant impact on the lengths of the alternate paths computed.
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that off-line analysis that considers
the centrality of a router be used to help determine how good a
choice a particular router is for the role of GADAG root.
5.3. Initialization
Before running the algorithm, there is the standard type of
initialization to be done, such as clearing any computed DFS-values,
lowpoint-values, DFS-parents, lowpoint-parents, any MRT-computed
next-hops, and flags associated with algorithm.
It is assumed that a regular SPF computation has been run so that the
primary next-hops from the computing router to each destination are
known. This is required for determining alternates at the last step.
Initially, all interfaces MUST be initialized to UNDIRECTED. Whether
they are OUTGOING, INCOMING or both is determined when the GADAG is
constructed and augmented.
Due to manageability consideration
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability], overload, or a transient cause
such as [RFC3137], it is possible that some links and nodes will be
marked as unusable. This constraint must be consistently flooded via
the IGP [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt] [I-D.li-isis-mrt] so that links are
clearly known to be MRT-ineligible and not explored or used in the
MRT algorithm. In the algorithm description, it is assumed that such
links and nodes will not be explored or used and no more discussion
is given of this restriction.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
5.4. MRT Lowpoint Algorithm: Computing GADAG using lowpoint inheritance
As discussed in Section 4.2, it is necessary to find ears from a node
x that is already in the GADAG (known as IN_GADAG). Two different
methods are used to find ears in the algorithm. The first is by
going to a not IN_GADAG DFS-child and then following the chain of
low-point parents until an IN_GADAG node is found. The second is by
going to a not IN_GADAG neighbor and then following the chain of DFS
parents until an IN_GADAG node is found. As an ear is found, the
associated interfaces are marked based on the direction taken. The
nodes in the ear are marked as IN_GADAG. In the algorithm, first the
ears via DFS-children are found and then the ears via DFS-neighbors
are found.
By adding both types of ears when an IN_GADAG node is processed, all
ears that connect to that node are found. The order in which the
IN_GADAG nodes is processed is, of course, key to the algorithm. The
order is a stack of ears so the most recent ear is found at the top
of the stack. Of course, the stack stores nodes and not ears, so an
ordered list of nodes, from the first node in the ear to the last
node in the ear, is created as the ear is explored and then that list
is pushed onto the stack.
Each ear represents a partial order (see Figure 4) and processing the
nodes in order along each ear ensures that all ears connecting to a
node are found before a node higher in the partial order has its ears
explored. This means that the direction of the links in the ear is
always from the node x being processed towards the other end of the
ear. Additionally, by using a stack of ears, this means that any
unprocessed nodes in previous ears can only be ordered higher than
nodes in the ears below it on the stack.
In this algorithm that depends upon Low-Point inheritance, it is
necessary that every node have a low-point parent that is not itself.
If a node is a cut-vertex, that may not yet be the case. Therefore,
any nodes without a low-point parent will have their low-point parent
set to their DFS parent and their low-point value set to the DFS-
value of their parent. This assignment also properly allows an ear
between two cut-vertices.
Finally, the algorithm simultaneously computes each node's local-
root, as described in Figure 12. This is further elaborated as
follows. The local-root can be inherited from the node at the end of
the ear unless the end of the ear is x itself, in which case the
local-root for all the nodes in the ear would be x. This is because
whenever the first cycle is found in a block, or an ear involving a
bridge is computed, the cut-vertex closest to the root would be x
itself. In all other scenarios, the properties of lowpoint/dfs
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
parents ensure that the end of the ear will be in the same block, and
thus inheriting its local-root would be the correct local-root for
all newly added nodes.
The pseudo-code for the GADAG algorithm (assuming that the adjustment
of lowpoint for cut-vertices has been made) is shown in Figure 16.
Construct_Ear(x, Stack, intf, type)
ear_list = empty
cur_node = intf.remote_node
cur_intf = intf
not_done = true
while not_done
cur_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
cur_intf.OUTGOING = true
cur_intf.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
cur_intf.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
if cur_node.IN_GADAG is false
cur_node.IN_GADAG = true
add_to_list_end(ear_list, cur_node)
if type is CHILD
cur_intf = cur_node.lowpoint_parent_intf
cur_node = cur_node.lowpoint_parent
else type must be NEIGHBOR
cur_intf = cur_node.dfs_parent_intf
cur_node = cur_node.dfs_parent
else
not_done = false
if (type is CHILD) and (cur_node is x)
//x is a cut-vertex and the local root for
//the block in which the ear is computed
localroot = x
else
// Inherit local-root from the end of the ear
localroot = cur_node.localroot
while ear_list is not empty
y = remove_end_item_from_list(ear_list)
y.localroot = localroot
push(Stack, y)
Construct_GADAG_via_Lowpoint(topology, root)
root.IN_GADAG = true
root.localroot = root
Initialize Stack to empty
push root onto Stack
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
while (Stack is not empty)
x = pop(Stack)
foreach interface intf of x
if ((intf.remote_node.IN_GADAG == false) and
(intf.remote_node.dfs_parent is x))
Construct_Ear(x, Stack, intf, CHILD)
foreach interface intf of x
if ((intf.remote_node.IN_GADAG == false) and
(intf.remote_node.dfs_parent is not x))
Construct_Ear(x, Stack, intf, NEIGHBOR)
Construct_GADAG_via_Lowpoint(topology, root)
Figure 16: Low-point Inheritance GADAG algorithm
5.5. Augmenting the GADAG by directing all links
The GADAG, regardless of the algorithm used to construct it, at this
point could be used to find MRTs but the topology does not include
all links in the network graph. That has two impacts. First, there
might be shorter paths that respect the GADAG partial ordering and so
the alternate paths would not be as short as possible. Second, there
may be additional paths between a router x and the root that are not
included in the GADAG. Including those provides potentially more
bandwidth to traffic flowing on the alternates and may reduce
congestion compared to just using the GADAG as currently constructed.
The goal is thus to assign direction to every remaining link marked
as UNDIRECTED to improve the paths and number of paths found when the
MRTs are computed.
To do this, we need to establish a total order that respects the
partial order described by the GADAG. This can be done using Kahn's
topological sort[Kahn_1962_topo_sort] which essentially assigns a
number to a node x only after all nodes before it (e.g. with a link
incoming to x) have had their numbers assigned. The only issue with
the topological sort is that it works on DAGs and not ADAGs or
GADAGs.
To convert a GADAG to a DAG, it is necessary to remove all links that
point to a root of block from within that block. That provides the
necessary conversion to a DAG and then a topological sort can be
done. Finally, all UNDIRECTED links are assigned a direction based
upon the partial ordering. Any UNDIRECTED links that connect to a
root of a block from within that block are assigned a direction
INCOMING to that root. The exact details of this whole process are
captured in Figure 17
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Set_Block_Root_Incoming_Links(topo, root, mark_or_clear)
foreach node x in topo
if node x is a cut-vertex or root
foreach interface i of x
if (i.remote_node.localroot is x)
if i.UNDIRECTED
i.OUTGOING = true
i.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
i.UNDIRECTED = false
i.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
if i.INCOMING
if mark_or_clear is mark
if i.OUTGOING // a cut-link
i.STORE_INCOMING = true
i.INCOMING = false
i.remote_intf.STORE_OUTGOING = true
i.remote_intf.OUTGOING = false
i.TEMP_UNUSABLE = true
i.remote_intf.TEMP_UNUSABLE = true
else
i.TEMP_UNUSABLE = false
i.remote_intf.TEMP_UNUSABLE = false
if i.STORE_INCOMING and (mark_or_clear is clear)
i.INCOMING = true
i.STORE_INCOMING = false
i.remote_intf.OUTGOING = true
i.remote_intf.STORE_OUTGOING = false
Run_Topological_Sort_GADAG(topo, root)
Set_Block_Root_Incoming_Links(topo, root, MARK)
foreach node x
set x.unvisited to the count of x's incoming interfaces
that aren't marked TEMP_UNUSABLE
Initialize working_list to empty
Initialize topo_order_list to empty
add_to_list_end(working_list, root)
while working_list is not empty
y = remove_start_item_from_list(working_list)
add_to_list_end(topo_order_list, y)
foreach interface i of y
if (i.OUTGOING) and (not i.TEMP_UNUSABLE)
i.remote_node.unvisited -= 1
if i.remote_node.unvisited is 0
add_to_list_end(working_list, i.remote_node)
next_topo_order = 1
while topo_order_list is not empty
y = remove_start_item_from_list(topo_order_list)
y.topo_order = next_topo_order
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
next_topo_order += 1
Set_Block_Root_Incoming_Links(topo, root, CLEAR)
Add_Undirected_Links(topo, root)
Run_Topological_Sort_GADAG(topo, root)
foreach node x in topo
foreach interface i of x
if i.UNDIRECTED
if x.topo_order < i.remote_node.topo_order
i.OUTGOING = true
i.UNDIRECTED = false
i.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
i.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
else
i.INCOMING = true
i.UNDIRECTED = false
i.remote_intf.OUTGOING = true
i.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
Add_Undirected_Links(topo, root)
Figure 17: Assigning direction to UNDIRECTED links
Proxy-nodes do not need to be added to the network graph. They
cannot be transited and do not affect the MRTs that are computed.
The details of how the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red next-hops are computed
and how the appropriate alternate next-hops are selected is given in
Section 5.8.
5.6. Compute MRT next-hops
As was discussed in Section 4.1, once a ADAG is found, it is
straightforward to find the next-hops from any node X to the ADAG
root. However, in this algorithm, we want to reuse the common GADAG
and find not only the one pair of MRTs rooted at the GADAG root with
it, but find a pair rooted at each node. This is useful since it is
significantly faster to compute. It may also provide easier
troubleshooting of the MRT-Red and MRT-Blue.
The method for computing differently rooted MRTs from the common
GADAG is based on two ideas. First, if two nodes X and Y are ordered
with respect to each other in the partial order, then an SPF along
OUTGOING links (an increasing-SPF) and an SPF along INCOMING links (a
decreasing-SPF) can be used to find the increasing and decreasing
paths. Second, if two nodes X and Y aren't ordered with respect to
each other in the partial order, then intermediary nodes can be used
to create the paths by increasing/decreasing to the intermediary and
then decreasing/increasing to reach Y.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
As usual, the two basic ideas will be discussed assuming the network
is two-connected. The generalization to multiple blocks is discussed
in Section 5.6.4. The full algorithm is given in Section 5.6.5.
5.6.1. MRT next-hops to all nodes partially ordered with respect to the
computing node
To find two node-disjoint paths from the computing router X to any
node Y, depends upon whether Y >> X or Y << X. As shown in
Figure 18, if Y >> X, then there is an increasing path that goes from
X to Y without crossing R; this contains nodes in the interval [X,Y].
There is also a decreasing path that decreases towards R and then
decreases from R to Y; this contains nodes in the interval
[X,R-small] or [R-great,Y]. The two paths cannot have common nodes
other than X and Y.
[Y]<---(Cloud 2)<--- [X]
| ^
| |
V |
(Cloud 3)--->[R]--->(Cloud 1)
MRT-Blue path: X->Cloud 2->Y
MRT-Red path: X->Cloud 1->R->Cloud 3->Y
Figure 18: Y >> X
Similar logic applies if Y << X, as shown in Figure 19. In this
case, the increasing path from X increases to R and then increases
from R to Y to use nodes in the intervals [X,R-great] and [R-small,
Y]. The decreasing path from X reaches Y without crossing R and uses
nodes in the interval [Y,X].
[X]<---(Cloud 2)<--- [Y]
| ^
| |
V |
(Cloud 3)--->[R]--->(Cloud 1)
MRT-Blue path: X->Cloud 3->R->Cloud 1->Y
MRT-Red path: X->Cloud 2->Y
Figure 19: Y << X
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
5.6.2. MRT next-hops to all nodes not partially ordered with respect to
the computing node
When X and Y are not ordered, the first path should increase until we
get to a node G, where G >> Y. At G, we need to decrease to Y. The
other path should be just the opposite: we must decrease until we get
to a node H, where H << Y, and then increase. Since R is smaller and
greater than Y, such G and H must exist. It is also easy to see that
these two paths must be node disjoint: the first path contains nodes
in interval [X,G] and [Y,G], while the second path contains nodes in
interval [H,X] and [H,Y]. This is illustrated in Figure 20. It is
necessary to decrease and then increase for the MRT-Blue and increase
and then decrease for the MRT-Red; if one simply increased for one
and decreased for the other, then both paths would go through the
root R.
(Cloud 6)<---[Y]<---(Cloud 5)<------------|
| |
| |
V |
[G]--->(Cloud 4)--->[R]--->(Cloud 1)--->[H]
^ |
| |
| |
(Cloud 3)<---[X]<---(Cloud 2)<-----------|
MRT-Blue path: decrease to H and increase to Y
X->Cloud 2->H->Cloud 5->Y
MRT-Red path: increase to G and decrease to Y
X->Cloud 3->G->Cloud 6->Y
Figure 20: X and Y unordered
This gives disjoint paths as long as G and H are not the same node.
Since G >> Y and H << Y, if G and H could be the same node, that
would have to be the root R. This is not possible because there is
only one incoming interface to the root R which is created when the
initial cycle is found. Recall from Figure 6 that whenever an ear
was found to have an end that was the root R, the ear was directed
from R so that the associated interface on R is outgoing and not
incoming. Therefore, there must be exactly one node M which is the
largest one before R, so the MRT-Red path will never reach R; it will
turn at M and decrease to Y.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
5.6.3. Computing Redundant Tree next-hops in a 2-connected Graph
The basic ideas for computing RT next-hops in a 2-connected graph
were given in Section 5.6.1 and Section 5.6.2. Given these two
ideas, how can we find the trees?
If some node X only wants to find the next-hops (which is usually the
case for IP networks), it is enough to find which nodes are greater
and less than X, and which are not ordered; this can be done by
running an increasing-SPF and a decreasing-SPF rooted at X and not
exploring any links from the ADAG root. ( Traversal algorithms other
than SPF could safely be used instead where one traversal takes the
links in their given directions and the other reverses the links'
directions.)
An increasing-SPF rooted at X and not exploring links from the root
will find the increasing next-hops to all Y >> X. Those increasing
next-hops are X's next-hops on the MRT-Blue to reach Y. An
decreasing-SPF rooted at X and not exploring links from the root will
find the decreasing next-hops to all Z << X. Those decreasing next-
hops are X's next-hops on the MRT-Red to reach Z. Since the root R
is both greater than and less than X, after this increasing-SPF and
decreasing-SPF, X's next-hops on the MRT-Blue and on the MRT-Red to
reach R are known. For every node Y >> X, X's next-hops on the MRT-
Red to reach Y are set to those on the MRT-Red to reach R. For every
node Z << X, X's next-hops on the MRT-Blue to reach Z are set to
those on the MRT-Blue to reach R.
For those nodes, which were not reached, we have the next-hops as
well. The increasing MRT-Blue next-hop for a node, which is not
ordered, is the next-hop along the decreasing MRT-Red towards R and
the decreasing MRT-Red next-hop is the next-hop along the increasing
MRT-Blue towards R. Naturally, since R is ordered with respect to all
the nodes, there will always be an increasing and a decreasing path
towards it. This algorithm does not provide the complete specific
path taken but just the appropriate next-hops to use. The identity
of G and H is not determined.
The final case to considered is when the root R computes its own
next-hops. Since the root R is << all other nodes, running an
increasing-SPF rooted at R will reach all other nodes; the MRT-Blue
next-hops are those found with this increasing-SPF. Similarly, since
the root R is >> all other nodes, running a decreasing-SPF rooted at
R will reach all other nodes; the MRT-Red next-hops are those found
with this decreasing-SPF.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
E---D---| E<--D<--|
| | | | ^ |
| | | V | |
R F C R F C
| | | | ^ ^
| | | V | |
A---B---| A-->B---|
(a) (b)
A 2-connected graph A spanning ADAG rooted at R
Figure 21
As an example consider the situation depicted in Figure 21. There
node C runs an increasing-SPF and a decreasing-SPF The increasing-SPF
reaches D, E and R and the decreasing-SPF reaches B, A and R. So
towards E the increasing next-hop is D (it was reached though D), and
the decreasing next-hop is B (since R was reached though B). Since
both D and B, A and R will compute the next hops similarly, the
packets will reach E.
We have the next-hops towards F as well: since F is not ordered with
respect to C, the MRT-Blue next-hop is the decreasing one towards R
(which is B) and the MRT-Red next-hop is the increasing one towards R
(which is D). Since B is ordered with F, it will find, for its MRT-
Blue, a real increasing next-hop, so packet forwarded to B will get
to F on path C-B-F. Similarly, D will have, for its MRT-Red, a real
decreasing next-hop, and the packet will use path C-D-F.
5.6.4. Generalizing for graph that isn't 2-connected
If a graph isn't 2-connected, then the basic approach given in
Section 5.6.3 needs some extensions to determine the appropriate MRT
next-hops to use for destinations outside the computing router X's
blocks. In order to find a pair of maximally redundant trees in that
graph we need to find a pair of RTs in each of the blocks (the root
of these trees will be discussed later), and combine them.
When computing the MRT next-hops from a router X, there are three
basic differences:
1. Only nodes in a common block with X should be explored in the
increasing-SPF and decreasing-SPF.
2. Instead of using the GADAG root, X's local-root should be used.
This has the following implications:
A. The links from X's local-root should not be explored.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
B. If a node is explored in the outgoing SPF so Y >> X, then X's
MRT-Red next-hops to reach Y uses X's MRT-Red next-hops to
reach X's local-root and if Z << X, then X's MRT-Blue next-
hops to reach Z uses X's MRT-Blue next-hops to reach X's
local-root.
C. If a node W in a common block with X was not reached in the
increasing-SPF or decreasing-SPF, then W is unordered with
respect to X. X's MRT-Blue next-hops to W are X's decreasing
aka MRT-Red next-hops to X's local-root. X's MRT-Red next-
hops to W are X's increasing aka Blue MRT next-hops to X's
local-root.
3. For nodes in different blocks, the next-hops must be inherited
via the relevant cut-vertex.
These are all captured in the detailed algorithm given in
Section 5.6.5.
5.6.5. Complete Algorithm to Compute MRT Next-Hops
The complete algorithm to compute MRT Next-Hops for a particular
router X is given in Figure 22. In addition to computing the MRT-
Blue next-hops and MRT-Red next-hops used by X to reach each node Y,
the algorithm also stores an "order_proxy", which is the proper cut-
vertex to reach Y if it is outside the block, and which is used later
in deciding whether the MRT-Blue or the MRT-Red can provide an
acceptable alternate for a particular primary next-hop.
In_Common_Block(x, y)
if (((x.localroot is y.localroot) and (x.block_id is y.block_id))
or (x is y.localroot) or (y is x.localroot))
return true
return false
Store_Results(y, direction, spf_root, store_nhs)
if direction is FORWARD
y.higher = true
if store_nhs
y.blue_next_hops = y.next_hops
if direction is REVERSE
y.lower = true
if store_nhs
y.red_next_hops = y.next_hops
SPF_No_Traverse_Root(spf_root, block_root, direction, store_nhs)
Initialize spf_heap to empty
Initialize nodes' spf_metric to infinity and next_hops to empty
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
spf_root.spf_metric = 0
insert(spf_heap, spf_root)
while (spf_heap is not empty)
min_node = remove_lowest(spf_heap)
Store_Results(min_node, direction, spf_root, store_nhs)
if ((min_node is spf_root) or (min_node is not block_root))
foreach interface intf of min_node
if (((direction is FORWARD) and intf.OUTGOING) or
((direction is REVERSE) and intf.INCOMING) and
In_Common_Block(spf_root, intf.remote_node))
path_metric = min_node.spf_metric + intf.metric
if path_metric < intf.remote_node.spf_metric
intf.remote_node.spf_metric = path_metric
if min_node is spf_root
intf.remote_node.next_hops = make_list(intf)
else
intf.remote_node.next_hops = min_node.next_hops
insert_or_update(spf_heap, intf.remote_node)
else if path_metric is intf.remote_node.spf_metric
if min_node is spf_root
add_to_list(intf.remote_node.next_hops, intf)
else
add_list_to_list(intf.remote_node.next_hops,
min_node.next_hops)
SetEdge(y)
if y.blue_next_hops is empty and y.red_next_hops is empty
if (y.local_root != y) {
SetEdge(y.localroot)
}
y.blue_next_hops = y.localroot.blue_next_hops
y.red_next_hops = y.localroot.red_next_hops
y.order_proxy = y.localroot.order_proxy
Compute_MRT_NextHops(x, root)
foreach node y
y.higher = y.lower = false
clear y.red_next_hops and y.blue_next_hops
y.order_proxy = y
SPF_No_Traverse_Root(x, x.localroot, FORWARD, TRUE)
SPF_No_Traverse_Root(x, x.localroot, REVERSE, TRUE)
// red and blue next-hops are stored to x.localroot as different
// paths are found via the SPF and reverse-SPF.
// Similarly any nodes whose local-root is x will have their
// red_next_hops and blue_next_hops already set.
// Handle nodes in the same block that aren't the local-root
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
foreach node y
if (y.IN_MRT_ISLAND and (y is not x) and
(y.localroot is x.localroot) and
((y is x.localroot) or (x is y.localroot) or
(y.block_id is x.block_id)))
if y.higher
y.red_next_hops = x.localroot.red_next_hops
else if y.lower
y.blue_next_hops = x.localroot.blue_next_hops
else
y.blue_next_hops = x.localroot.red_next_hops
y.red_next_hops = x.localroot.blue_next_hops
// Inherit next-hops and order_proxies to other components
if x is not root
root.blue_next_hops = x.localroot.blue_next_hops
root.red_next_hops = x.localroot.red_next_hops
root.order_proxy = x.localroot
foreach node y
if (y is not root) and (y is not x) and y.IN_MRT_ISLAND
SetEdge(y)
max_block_id = 0
Assign_Block_ID(root, max_block_id)
Compute_MRT_NextHops(x, root)
Figure 22
5.7. Identify MRT alternates
At this point, a computing router S knows its MRT-Blue next-hops and
MRT-Red next-hops for each destination in the MRT Island. The
primary next-hops along the SPT are also known. It remains to
determine for each primary next-hop to a destination D, which of the
MRTs avoids the primary next-hop node F. This computation depends
upon data set in Compute_MRT_NextHops such as each node y's
y.blue_next_hops, y.red_next_hops, y.order_proxy, y.higher, y.lower
and topo_orders. Recall that any router knows only which are the
nodes greater and lesser than itself, but it cannot decide the
relation between any two given nodes easily; that is why we need
topological ordering.
For each primary next-hop node F to each destination D, S can call
Select_Alternates(S, D, F, primary_intf) to determine whether to use
the MRT-Blue next-hops as the alternate next-hop(s) for that primary
next hop or to use the MRT-Red next-hops. The algorithm is given in
Figure 23 and discussed afterwards.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Select_Alternates_Internal(S, D, F, primary_intf,
D_lower, D_higher, D_topo_order)
//When D==F, we can do only link protection
if ((D is F) or (D.order_proxy is F))
if an MRT doesn't use primary_intf
indicate alternate is not node-protecting
return that MRT color
else // parallel links are cut-links
return AVOID_LINK_ON_BLUE
if (D_lower and D_higher and F.lower and F.higher)
if F.topo_order < D_topo_order
return USE_RED
else
return USE_BLUE
if (D_lower and D_higher)
if F.higher
return USE_RED
else
return USE_BLUE
if (F.lower and F.higher)
if D_lower
return USE_RED
else if D_higher
return USE_BLUE
else
if primary_intf.OUTGOING and primary_intf.INCOMING
return AVOID_LINK_ON_BLUE
if primary_intf.OUTGOING is true
return USE_BLUE
if primary_intf.INCOMING is true
return USE_RED
if D_higher
if F.higher
if F.topo_order < D_topo_order
return USE_RED
else
return USE_BLUE
else if F.lower
return USE_BLUE
else
// F and S are neighbors so either F << S or F >> S
else if D_lower
if F.higher
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
return USE_RED
else if F.lower
if F.topo_order < D_topo_order
return USE_RED
else
return USE_BLUE
else
// F and S are neighbors so either F << S or F >> S
else // D and S not ordered
if F.lower
return USE_RED
else if F.higher
return USE_BLUE
else
// F and S are neighbors so either F << S or F >> S
Select_Alternates(S, D, F, primary_intf)
if D.order_proxy is not D
D_lower = D.order_proxy.lower
D_higher = D.order_proxy.higher
D_topo_order = D.order_proxy.topo_order
else
D_lower = D.lower
D_higher = D.higher
D_topo_order = D.topo_order
return Select_Alternates_Internal(S, D, F, primary_intf,
D_lower, D_higher, D_topo_order)
Figure 23
If either D>>S>>F or D<~~>D (ii) F<D.topo_order, either case (i) or
case (iii) holds true, which means that selecting the Blue next-hop
is safe. Similarly, if F.topo_order>S, we
should use the Blue next-hop.
Additionally, the cases where either F or D is ordered both higher
and lower must be considered; this can happen when one is a block-
root or its order_proxy is. If D is both higher and lower than S,
then the MRT to use is the one that avoids F so if F is higher, then
the MRT-Red should be used and if F is lower, then the MRT-Blue
should be used; F and S must be ordered because they are neighbors.
If F is both higher and lower, then if D is lower, using the MRT-Red
to decrease reaches D and if D is higher, using the Blue MRT to
increase reaches D; if D is unordered compared to S, then the
situation is a bit more complicated.
In the case where F<~~~~ F, then use the MRT-Blue (decrease to avoid
that link and then increase). If the link is directed S <- F, then
use the MRT-Red (increase to avoid that link and then decrease). If
the link is S <--> F, then the link must be a cut-link and there is
no node-protecting alternate. If there are multiple links between S
and F, then they can protect against each other; of course, in this
situation, they are probably already ECMP.
Finally, there is the case where D is also F. In this case, only link
protection is possible. The MRT that doesn't use the indicated
primary next-hop is used. If both MRTs use the primary next-hop,
then the primary next-hop must be a cut-link so either MRT could be
used but the set of MRT next-hops must be pruned to avoid that
primary next-hop. To indicate this case, Select_Alternates returns
AVOID_LINK_ON_BLUE.
As an example, consider the ADAG depicted in Figure 24 and first
suppose that G is the source, D is the destination and H is the
failed next-hop. Since D>>G, we need to compare H.topo_order and
D.topo_order. Since D.topo_order>H.topo_order, D must be not smaller
than H, so we should select the decreasing path towards the root.
If, however, the destination were instead J, we must find that
H.topo_order>J.topo_order, so we must choose the increasing Blue
next-hop to J, which is I. In the case, when instead the destination
is C, we find that we need to first decrease to avoid using H, so the
Blue, first decreasing then increasing, path is selected.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
[E]<-[D]<-[H]<-[J]
| ^ ^ ^
V | | |
[R] [C] [G]->[I]
| ^ ^ ^
V | | |
[A]->[B]->[F]---|
(a)
a 2-connected graph
Figure 24
5.8. Finding FRR Next-Hops for Proxy-Nodes
As discussed in Section 10.2 of
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture], it is necessary to find MRT-
Blue and MRT-Red next-hops and MRT-FRR alternates for a named proxy-
nodes. An example case is for a router that is not part of that
local MRT Island, when there is only partial MRT support in the
domain.
A first incorrect and naive approach to handling proxy-nodes, which
cannot be transited, is to simply add these proxy-nodes to the graph
of the network and connect it to the routers through which the new
proxy-node can be reached. Unfortunately, this can introduce some
new ordering between the border routers connected to the new node
which could result in routing MRT paths through the proxy-node.
Thus, this naive approach would need to recompute GADAGs and redo
SPTs for each proxy-node.
Instead of adding the proxy-node to the original network graph, each
individual proxy-node can be individually added to the GADAG. The
proxy-node is connected to at most two nodes in the GADAG.
Section 10.2 of [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture] defines how the
proxy-node attachments MUST be determined. The degenerate case where
the proxy-node is attached to only one node in the GADAG is trivial
as all needed information can be derived from that attachment node;
if there are different interfaces, then some can be assigned to MRT-
Red and others to MRT_Blue.
Now, consider the proxy-node that is attached to exactly two nodes in
the GADAG. Let the order_proxies of these nodes be A and B. Let the
current node, where next-hop is just being calculated, be S. If one
of these two nodes A and B is the local root of S, let A=S.local_root
and the other one be B. Otherwise, let A.topo_order < B.topo_order.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
A valid GADAG was constructed. Instead doing an increasing-SPF and a
decreasing-SPF to find ordering for the proxy-nodes, the following
simple rules, providing the same result, can be used independently
for each different proxy-node. For the following rules, let
X=A.local_root, and if A is the local root, let that be strictly
lower than any other node. Always take the first rule that matches.
Rule Condition Blue NH Red NH Notes
1 S=X Blue to A Red to B
2 S<>B Blue to R Red to B
4 A<~~~~> S,
the computing router, MUST be one or more nodes, T, whose topo_order
is in the interval [X.topo_order, Y.topo_order] and where Y >> T or Y
is T. Similarly, the MRT-Red next-hops MUST be have a topo_order in
the interval [R-small.topo_order, X.topo_order] or [Y.topo_order,
R-big.topo_order].
Implementations SHOULD implement the Select_Alternates() function to
pick an MRT-FRR alternate.
In a future version, this section will include pseudo-code describing
the full code path through the pseudo-code given earlier in the
draft.
7. Algorithm Alternatives and Evaluation
This specification defines the MRT Lowpoint Algorithm, which is one
option among several possible MRT algorithms. Other alternatives are
described in the appendices.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
In addition, it is possible to calculate Destination-Rooted GADAG,
where for each destination, a GADAG rooted at that destination is
computed. Then a router can compute the blue MRT and red MRT next-
hops to that destination. Building GADAGs per destination is
computationally more expensive, but may give somewhat shorter
alternate paths. It may be useful for live-live multicast along
MRTs.
7.1. Algorithm Evaluation
The MRT Lowpoint algorithm is the lowest computation of the MRT
algorithms. Two other MRT algorithms are provided in Appendix A and
Appendix B. When analyzed on service provider network topologies,
they did not provide significant differences in the path lenghts for
the alternatives. This section does not focus on that analysis or
the decision to use the MRT Lowpoint algorithm as the default MRT
algorithm; it has the lowest computational and storage requirements
and gave comparable results.
Since this document defines the MRT Lowpoint algorithm for use in
fast-reroute applications, it is useful to compare MRT and Remote LFA
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]. This section compares MRT and remote
LFA for IP Fast Reroute in 19 service provider network topologies,
focusing on coverage and alternate path length. Figure 26 shows the
node-protecting coverage provided by local LFA (LLFA), remote LFA
(RLFA), and MRT against different failure scenarios in these
topologies. The coverage values are calculated as the percentage of
source-destination pairs protected by the given IPFRR method relative
to those protectable by optimal routing, against the same failure
modes. More details on alternate selection policies used for this
analysis are described later in this section.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
+------------+-----------------------------+
| Topology | percentage of failure |
| | scenarios covered by |
| | IPFRR method |
| |-----------------------------+
| | NP_LLFA | NP_RLFA | MRT |
+------------+---------+---------+---------+
| T201 | 37 | 90 | 100 |
| T202 | 73 | 83 | 100 |
| T203 | 51 | 80 | 100 |
| T204 | 55 | 81 | 100 |
| T205 | 92 | 93 | 100 |
| T206 | 71 | 74 | 100 |
| T207 | 57 | 74 | 100 |
| T208 | 66 | 81 | 100 |
| T209 | 79 | 79 | 100 |
| T210 | 95 | 98 | 100 |
| T211 | 68 | 71 | 100 |
| T212 | 59 | 63 | 100 |
| T213 | 84 | 84 | 100 |
| T214 | 68 | 78 | 100 |
| T215 | 84 | 88 | 100 |
| T216 | 43 | 59 | 100 |
| T217 | 78 | 88 | 100 |
| T218 | 72 | 75 | 100 |
| T219 | 78 | 84 | 100 |
+------------+---------+---------+---------+
Figure 26
For the topologies analyzed here, LLFA is able to provide node-
protecting coverage ranging from 37% to 95% of the source-destination
pairs, as seen in the column labeled NP_LLFA. The use of RLFA in
addition to LLFA is generally able to increase the node-protecting
coverage. The percentage of node-protecting coverage with RLFA is
provided in the column labeled NP_RLFA, ranges from 59% to 98% for
these topologies. The node-protecting coverage provided by MRT is
100% since MRT is able to provide protection for any source-
destination pair for which a path still exists after the failure.
We would also like to measure the quality of the alternate paths
produced by these different IPFRR methods. An obvious approach is to
take an average of the alternate path costs over all source-
destination pairs and failure modes. However, this presents a
problem, which we will illustrate by presenting an example of results
for one topology using this approach ( Figure 27). In this table,
the average relative path length is the alternate path length for the
IPFRR method divided by the optimal alternate path length, averaged
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
over all source-destination pairs and failure modes. The first three
columns of data in the table give the path length calculated from the
sum of IGP metrics of the links in the path. The results for
topology T208 show that the metric-based path lengths for NP_LLFA and
NP_RLFA alternates are on average 78 and 66 times longer than the
path lengths for optimal alternates. The metric-based path lengths
for MRT alternates are on average 14 times longer than for optimal
alternates.
+--------+------------------------------------------------+
| | average relative alternate path length |
| |-----------------------+------------------------+
|Topology| IGP metric | hopcount |
| |-----------------------+------------------------+
| |NP_LLFA |NP_RLFA | MRT |NP_LLFA |NP_RLFA | MRT |
+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+--------+------+
| T208 | 78.2 | 66.0 | 13.6| 0.99 | 1.01 | 1.32 |
+--------+--------+--------+-----+--------+--------+------+
Figure 27
The network topology represented by T208 uses values of 10, 100, and
1000 as IGP costs, so small deviations from the optimal alternate
path can result in large differences in relative path length. LLFA,
RLFA, and MRT all allow for at least one hop in the alterate path to
be chosen independent of the cost of the link. This can easily
result in an alternate using a link with cost 1000, which introduces
noise into the path length measurement. In the case of T208, the
adverse effects of using metric-based path lengths is obvious.
However, we have observed that the metric-based path length
introduces noise into alternate path length measurements in several
other topologies as well. For this reason, we have opted to measure
the alternate path length using hopcount. While IGP metrics may be
adjusted by the network operator for a number of reasons (e.g.
traffic engineering), the hopcount is a fairly stable measurement of
path length. As shown in the last three columns of Figure 27, the
hopcount-based alternate path lengths for topology T208 are fairly
well-behaved.
Figure 28, Figure 29, Figure 30, and Figure 31 present the hopcount-
based path length results for the 19 topologies examined. The
topologies in the four tables are grouped based on the size of the
topologies, as measured by the number of nodes, with Figure 28 having
the smallest topologies and Figure 31 having the largest topologies.
Instead of trying to represent the path lengths of a large set of
alternates with a single number, we have chosen to present a
histogram of the path lengths for each IPFRR method and alternate
selection policy studied. The first eight colums of data represent
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
the percentage of failure scenarios protected by an alternate N hops
longer than the primary path, with the first column representing an
alternate 0 or 1 hops longer than the primary path, all the way up
through the eighth column respresenting an alternate 14 or 15 hops
longer than the primary path. The last column in the table gives the
percentage of failure scenarios for which there is no alternate less
than 16 hops longer than the primary path. In the case of LLFA and
RLFA, this category includes failure scenarios for which no alternate
was found.
For each topology, the first row (labeled OPTIMAL) is the
distribution of the number of hops in excess of the primary path
hopcount for optimally routed alternates. (The optimal routing was
done with respect to IGP metrics, as opposed to hopcount.) The
second row(labeled NP_LLFA) is the distribution of the extra hops for
node-protecting LLFA. The third row (labeled NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA)
is the hopcount distribution when one adds node-protecting RLFA to
increase the coverage. The alternate selection policy used here
first tries to find a node-protecting LLFA. If that does not exist,
then it tries to find an RLFA, and checks if it is node-protecting.
Comparing the hopcount distribution for RLFA and LLFA across these
topologies, one can see how the coverage is increased at the expense
of using longer alternates. It is also worth noting that while
superficially LLFA and RLFA appear to have better hopcount
distributions than OPTIMAL, the presence of entries in the last
column (no alternate < 16) mainly represent failure scenarios that
are not protected, for which the hopcount is effectively infinite.
The fourth and fifth rows of each topology show the hopcount
distributions for two alternate selection policies using MRT
alternates. The policy represented by the label
NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT will first use a node-protecting LLFA. If
a node-protecting LLFA does not exist, then it will use an MRT
alternate. The policy represented by the label MRT_LOWPOINT instead
will use the MRT alternate even if a node-protecting LLFA exists.
One can see from the data that combining node-protecting LLFA with
MRT results in a significant shortening of the alternate hopcount
distribution.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | percentage of failure scenarios |
| Topology name | protected by an alternate N hops |
| and | longer than the primary path |
| alternate selection +------------------------------------+
| policy evaluated | | | | | | | | | no |
| | | | | | |10 |12 |14 | alt|
| |0-1|2-3|4-5|6-7|8-9|-11|-13|-15| <16|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T201(avg primary hops=3.5) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 37| 37| 20| 3| 3| | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 37| | | | | | | | 63|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 37| 34| 19| | | | | | 10|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 37| 33| 21| 6| 3| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT | 33| 36| 23| 6| 3| | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T202(avg primary hops=4.8) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 90| 9| | | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 71| 2| | | | | | | 27|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 78| 5| | | | | | | 17|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 80| 12| 5| 2| 1| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 48| 29| 13| 7| 2| 1| | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T203(avg primary hops=4.1) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 36| 37| 21| 4| 2| | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 34| 15| 3| | | | | | 49|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 35| 19| 22| 4| | | | | 20|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 36| 35| 22| 5| 2| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 31| 35| 26| 7| 2| | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T204(avg primary hops=3.7) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 76| 20| 3| 1| | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 54| 1| | | | | | | 45|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 67| 10| 4| | | | | | 19|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 70| 18| 8| 3| 1| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 58| 27| 11| 3| 1| | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T205(avg primary hops=3.4) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 92| 8| | | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 89| 3| | | | | | | 8|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 90| 4| | | | | | | 7|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 91| 9| | | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 62| 33| 5| 1| | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
Figure 28
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | percentage of failure scenarios |
| Topology name | protected by an alternate N hops |
| and | longer than the primary path |
| alternate selection +------------------------------------+
| policy evaluated | | | | | | | | | no |
| | | | | | |10 |12 |14 | alt|
| |0-1|2-3|4-5|6-7|8-9|-11|-13|-15| <16|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T206(avg primary hops=3.7) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 63| 30| 7| | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 60| 9| 1| | | | | | 29|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 60| 13| 1| | | | | | 26|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 64| 29| 7| | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT | 55| 32| 13| | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T207(avg primary hops=3.9) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 71| 24| 5| 1| | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 55| 2| | | | | | | 43|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 63| 10| | | | | | | 26|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 70| 20| 7| 2| 1| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 57| 29| 11| 3| 1| | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T208(avg primary hops=4.6) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 58| 28| 12| 2| 1| | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 53| 11| 3| | | | | | 34|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 56| 17| 7| 1| | | | | 19|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 58| 19| 10| 7| 3| 1| | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 34| 24| 21| 13| 6| 2| 1| | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T209(avg primary hops=3.6) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 85| 14| 1| | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 79| | | | | | | | 21|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 79| | | | | | | | 21|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 82| 15| 2| | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 63| 29| 8| | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T210(avg primary hops=2.5) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 95| 4| 1| | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 94| 1| | | | | | | 5|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 94| 3| 1| | | | | | 2|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 95| 4| 1| | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 91| 6| 2| | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
Figure 29
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | percentage of failure scenarios |
| Topology name | protected by an alternate N hops |
| and | longer than the primary path |
| alternate selection +------------------------------------+
| policy evaluated | | | | | | | | | no |
| | | | | | |10 |12 |14 | alt|
| |0-1|2-3|4-5|6-7|8-9|-11|-13|-15| <16|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T211(avg primary hops=3.3) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 88| 11| | | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 66| 1| | | | | | | 32|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 68| 3| | | | | | | 29|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 88| 12| | | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT | 85| 15| 1| | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T212(avg primary hops=3.5) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 76| 23| 1| | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 59| | | | | | | | 41|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 61| 1| 1| | | | | | 37|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 75| 24| 1| | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 66| 31| 3| | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T213(avg primary hops=4.3) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 91| 9| | | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 84| | | | | | | | 16|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 84| | | | | | | | 16|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 89| 10| 1| | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 75| 24| 1| | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T214(avg primary hops=5.8) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 71| 22| 5| 2| | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 58| 8| 1| 1| | | | | 32|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 61| 13| 3| 1| | | | | 22|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 66| 14| 7| 5| 3| 2| 1| 1| 1|
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 30| 20| 18| 12| 8| 4| 3| 2| 3|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T215(avg primary hops=4.8) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 73| 27| | | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 73| 11| | | | | | | 16|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 73| 13| 2| | | | | | 12|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 74| 19| 3| 2| 1| 1| 1| | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 32| 31| 16| 12| 4| 3| 1| | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
Figure 30
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | percentage of failure scenarios |
| Topology name | protected by an alternate N hops |
| and | longer than the primary path |
| alternate selection +------------------------------------+
| policy evaluated | | | | | | | | | no |
| | | | | | |10 |12 |14 | alt|
| |0-1|2-3|4-5|6-7|8-9|-11|-13|-15| <16|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T216(avg primary hops=5.2) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 60| 32| 7| 1| | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 39| 4| | | | | | | 57|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 46| 12| 2| | | | | | 41|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 48| 20| 12| 7| 5| 4| 2| 1| 1|
| MRT_LOWPOINT | 28| 25| 18| 11| 7| 6| 3| 2| 1|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T217(avg primary hops=8.0) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 81| 13| 5| 1| | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 74| 3| 1| | | | | | 22|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 76| 8| 3| 1| | | | | 12|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 77| 7| 5| 4| 3| 2| 1| 1| |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 25| 18| 18| 16| 12| 6| 3| 1| |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T218(avg primary hops=5.5) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 85| 14| 1| | | | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 68| 3| | | | | | | 28|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 71| 4| | | | | | | 25|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 77| 12| 7| 4| 1| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 37| 29| 21| 10| 3| 1| | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T219(avg primary hops=7.7) | | | | | | | | | |
| OPTIMAL | 77| 15| 5| 1| 1| | | | |
| NP_LLFA | 72| 5| | | | | | | 22|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_NP_RLFA | 73| 8| 2| | | | | | 16|
| NP_LLFA_THEN_MRT_LOWPOINT | 74| 8| 3| 3| 2| 2| 2| 2| 4|
| MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY | 19| 14| 15| 12| 10| 8| 7| 6| 10|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
Figure 31
In the preceding analysis, the following procedure for selecting an
RLFA was used. Nodes were ordered with respect to distance from the
source and checked for membership in Q and P-space. The first node
to satisfy this condition was selected as the RLFA. More
sophisticated methods to select node-protecting RLFAs is an area of
active research.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
The analysis presented above uses the MRT Lowpoint Algorithm defined
in this specification with a common GADAG root. The particular
choice of a common GADAG root is expected to affect the quality of
the MRT alternate paths, with a more central common GADAG root
resulting in shorter MRT alternate path lengths. For the analysis
above, the GADAG root was chosen for each topology by calculating
node centrality as the sum of costs of all shortest paths to and from
a given node. The node with the lowest sum was chosen as the common
GADAG root. In actual deployments, the common GADAG root would be
chosen based on the GADAG Root Selection Priority advertised by each
router, the values of which would be determined off-line.
In order to measure how sensitive the MRT alternate path lengths are
to the choice of common GADAG root, we performed the same analysis
using different choices of GADAG root. All of the nodes in the
network were ordered with respect to the node centrality as computed
above. Nodes were chosen at the 0th, 25th, and 50th percentile with
respect to the centrality ordering, with 0th percentile being the
most central node. The distribution of alternate path lengths for
those three choices of GADAG root are shown in Figure 32 for a subset
of the 19 topologies (chosen arbitrarily). The third row for each
topology (labeled MRT_LOWPOINT ( 0 percentile) ) reproduces the
results presented above for MRT_LOWPOINT_ONLY. The fourth and fifth
rows show the alternate path length distibution for the 25th and 50th
percentile choice for GADAG root. One can see some impact on the
path length distribution with the less central choice of GADAG root
resulting in longer path lenghths.
We also looked at the impact of MRT algorithm variant on the
alternate path lengths. The first two rows for each topology present
results of the same alternate path length distribution analysis for
the SPF and Hybrid methods for computing the GADAG. These two
methods are described in Appendix A and Appendix B. For three of the
topologies in this subset (T201, T206, and T211), the use of SPF or
Hybrid methods does not appear to provide a significant advantage
over the Lowpoint method with respect to path length. Instead, the
choice of GADAG root appears to have more impact on the path length.
However, for two of the topologies in this subset(T216 and T219) and
for this particular choice of GAGAG root, the use of the SPF method
results in noticeably shorter alternate path lengths than the use of
the Lowpoint or Hybrid methods. It remains to be determined if this
effect applies generally across more topologies or is sensitive to
choice of GADAG root.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Topology name | percentage of failure scenarios |
| | protected by an alternate N hops |
| MRT algorithm variant | longer than the primary path |
| +------------------------------------+
| (GADAG root | | | | | | | | | no |
| centrality percentile) | | | | | |10 |12 |14 | alt|
| |0-1|2-3|4-5|6-7|8-9|-11|-13|-15| <16|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T201(avg primary hops=3.5) | | | | | | | | | |
| MRT_HYBRID ( 0 percentile) | 33| 26| 23| 6| 3| | | | |
| MRT_SPF ( 0 percentile) | 33| 36| 23| 6| 3| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT ( 0 percentile) | 33| 36| 23| 6| 3| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT (25 percentile) | 27| 29| 23| 11| 10| | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT (50 percentile) | 27| 29| 23| 11| 10| | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T206(avg primary hops=3.7) | | | | | | | | | |
| MRT_HYBRID ( 0 percentile) | 50| 35| 13| 2| | | | | |
| MRT_SPF ( 0 percentile) | 50| 35| 13| 2| | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT ( 0 percentile) | 55| 32| 13| | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT (25 percentile) | 47| 25| 22| 6| | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT (50 percentile) | 38| 38| 14| 11| | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T211(avg primary hops=3.3) | | | | | | | | | |
| MRT_HYBRID ( 0 percentile) | 86| 14| | | | | | | |
| MRT_SPF ( 0 percentile) | 86| 14| | | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT ( 0 percentile) | 85| 15| 1| | | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT (25 percentile) | 70| 25| 5| 1| | | | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT (50 percentile) | 80| 18| 2| | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T216(avg primary hops=5.2) | | | | | | | | | |
| MRT_HYBRID ( 0 percentile) | 23| 22| 18| 13| 10| 7| 4| 2| 2|
| MRT_SPF ( 0 percentile) | 35| 32| 19| 9| 3| 1| | | |
| MRT_LOWPOINT ( 0 percentile) | 28| 25| 18| 11| 7| 6| 3| 2| 1|
| MRT_LOWPOINT (25 percentile) | 24| 20| 19| 16| 10| 6| 3| 1| |
| MRT_LOWPOINT (50 percentile) | 19| 14| 13| 10| 8| 6| 5| 5| 10|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
| T219(avg primary hops=7.7) | | | | | | | | | |
| MRT_HYBRID ( 0 percentile) | 20| 16| 13| 10| 7| 5| 5| 5| 3|
| MRT_SPF ( 0 percentile) | 31| 23| 19| 12| 7| 4| 2| 1| |
| MRT_LOWPOINT ( 0 percentile) | 19| 14| 15| 12| 10| 8| 7| 6| 10|
| MRT_LOWPOINT (25 percentile) | 19| 14| 15| 13| 12| 10| 6| 5| 7|
| MRT_LOWPOINT (50 percentile) | 19| 14| 14| 12| 11| 8| 6| 6| 10|
+------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+----+
Figure 32
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
8. Algorithm Work to Be Done
Broadcast Interfaces: The algorithm assumes that broadcast
interfaces are already represented as pseudo-nodes in the network
graph. Given maximal redundancy, one of the MRT will try to avoid
both the pseudo-node and the next hop. The exact rules need to be
fully specified.
9. IANA Considerations
This doument includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations
This architecture is not currently believed to introduce new security
concerns.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture]
Atlas, A., Kebler, R., Envedi, G., Csaszar, A., Tantsura,
J., Konstantynowicz, M., and R. White, "An Architecture
for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-03 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
11.2. Informative References
[EnyediThesis]
Enyedi, G., "Novel Algorithms for IP Fast Reroute",
Department of Telecommunications and Media Informatics,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics Ph.D.
Thesis, February 2011, .
[I-D.atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt]
Atlas, A., Tiruveedhula, K., Tantsura, J., and I.
Wijnands, "LDP Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant
Trees", draft-atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt-00 (work in progress),
July 2013.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
[I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt]
Atlas, A., Hegde, S., cbowers@juniper.net, c., and J.
Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant
Trees", draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-01 (work in progress),
October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses]
Bryant, S., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "A Framework for IP
and MPLS Fast Reroute Using Not-via Addresses", draft-
ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-11 (work in progress),
May 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
Horneffer, M., and p. psarkar@juniper.net, "Operational
management of Loop Free Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-
manageability-03 (work in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]
Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and S.
Ning, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-04
(work in progress), November 2013.
[I-D.li-isis-mrt]
Li, Z., Wu, N., Zhao, Q., Atlas, A., cbowers@juniper.net,
c., and J. Tantsura, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Maximally Redundant Trees
(MRT)", draft-li-isis-mrt-00 (work in progress), October
2013.
[Kahn_1962_topo_sort]
Kahn, A., "Topological sorting of large networks",
Communications of the ACM, Volume 5, Issue 11 , Nov 1962,
.
[LFARevisited]
Retvari, G., Tapolcai, J., Enyedi, G., and A. Csaszar, "IP
Fast ReRoute: Loop Free Alternates Revisited", Proceedings
of IEEE INFOCOM , 2011, .
[LightweightNotVia]
Enyedi, G., Retvari, G., Szilagyi, P., and A. Csaszar, "IP
Fast ReRoute: Lightweight Not-Via without Additional
Addresses", Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM , 2009,
.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
[MRTLinear]
Enyedi, G., Retvari, G., and A. Csaszar, "On Finding
Maximally Redundant Trees in Strictly Linear Time", IEEE
Symposium on Computers and Comunications (ISCC) , 2009,
.
[RFC3137] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137,
June 2001.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC
5714, January 2010.
[RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B.,
Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
Networks", RFC 6571, June 2012.
Appendix A. Option 2: Computing GADAG using SPFs
The basic idea in this option is to use slightly-modified SPF
computations to find ears. In every block, an SPF computation is
first done to find a cycle from the local root and then SPF
computations in that block find ears until there are no more
interfaces to be explored. The used result from the SPF computation
is the path of interfaces indicated by following the previous hops
from the mininized IN_GADAG node back to the SPF root.
To do this, first all cut-vertices must be identified and local-roots
assigned as specified in Figure 12.
The slight modifications to the SPF are as follows. The root of the
block is referred to as the block-root; it is either the GADAG root
or a cut-vertex.
a. The SPF is rooted at a neighbor x of an IN_GADAG node y. All
links between y and x are marked as TEMP_UNUSABLE. They should
not be used during the SPF computation.
b. If y is not the block-root, then it is marked TEMP_UNUSABLE. It
should not be used during the SPF computation. This prevents
ears from starting and ending at the same node and avoids cycles;
the exception is because cycles to/from the block-root are
acceptable and expected.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
c. Do not explore links to nodes whose local-root is not the block-
root. This keeps the SPF confined to the particular block.
d. Terminate when the first IN_GADAG node z is minimized.
e. Respect the existing directions (e.g. INCOMING, OUTGOING,
UNDIRECTED) already specified for each interface.
Mod_SPF(spf_root, block_root)
Initialize spf_heap to empty
Initialize nodes' spf_metric to infinity
spf_root.spf_metric = 0
insert(spf_heap, spf_root)
found_in_gadag = false
while (spf_heap is not empty) and (found_in_gadag is false)
min_node = remove_lowest(spf_heap)
if min_node.IN_GADAG is true
found_in_gadag = true
else
foreach interface intf of min_node
if ((intf.OUTGOING or intf.UNDIRECTED) and
((intf.remote_node.localroot is block_root) or
(intf.remote_node is block_root)) and
(intf.remote_node is not TEMP_UNUSABLE) and
(intf is not TEMP_UNUSABLE))
path_metric = min_node.spf_metric + intf.metric
if path_metric < intf.remote_node.spf_metric
intf.remote_node.spf_metric = path_metric
intf.remote_node.spf_prev_intf = intf
insert_or_update(spf_heap, intf.remote_node)
return min_node
SPF_for_Ear(cand_intf.local_node,cand_intf.remote_node, block_root,
method)
Mark all interfaces between cand_intf.remote_node
and cand_intf.local_node as TEMP_UNUSABLE
if cand_intf.local_node is not block_root
Mark cand_intf.local_node as TEMP_UNUSABLE
Initialize ear_list to empty
end_ear = Mod_SPF(spf_root, block_root)
y = end_ear.spf_prev_hop
while y.local_node is not spf_root
add_to_list_start(ear_list, y)
y.local_node.IN_GADAG = true
y = y.local_node.spf_prev_intf
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
if(method is not hybrid)
Set_Ear_Direction(ear_list, cand_intf.local_node,
end_ear,block_root)
Clear TEMP_UNUSABLE from all interfaces between
cand_intf.remote_node and cand_intf.local_node
Clear TEMP_UNUSABLE from cand_intf.local_node
return end_ear
Figure 33: Modified SPF for GADAG computation
Assume that an ear is found by going from y to x and then running an
SPF that terminates by minimizing z (e.g. y<->x...q<->z). Now it is
necessary to determine the direction of the ear; if y << z, then the
path should be y->x...q->z but if y >> z, then the path should be
y<-x...q<-z. In Section 5.4, the same problem was handled by finding
all ears that started at a node before looking at ears starting at
nodes higher in the partial order. In this algorithm, using that
approach could mean that new ears aren't added in order of their
total cost since all ears connected to a node would need to be found
before additional nodes could be found.
The alternative is to track the order relationship of each node with
respect to every other node. This can be accomplished by maintaining
two sets of nodes at each node. The first set, Higher_Nodes,
contains all nodes that are known to be ordered above the node. The
second set, Lower_Nodes, contains all nodes that are known to be
ordered below the node. This is the approach used in this algorithm.
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Set_Ear_Direction(ear_list, end_a, end_b, block_root)
// Default of A_TO_B for the following cases:
// (a) end_a and end_b are the same (root)
// or (b) end_a is in end_b's Lower Nodes
// or (c) end_a and end_b were unordered with respect to each
// other
direction = A_TO_B
if (end_b is block_root) and (end_a is not end_b)
direction = B_TO_A
else if end_a is in end_b.Higher_Nodes
direction = B_TO_A
if direction is B_TO_A
foreach interface i in ear_list
i.UNDIRECTED = false
i.INCOMING = true
i.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
i.remote_intf.OUTGOING = true
else
foreach interface i in ear_list
i.UNDIRECTED = false
i.OUTGOING = true
i.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
i.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
if end_a is end_b
return
// Next, update all nodes' Lower_Nodes and Higher_Nodes
if (end_a is in end_b.Higher_Nodes)
foreach node x where x.localroot is block_root
if end_a is in x.Lower_Nodes
foreach interface i in ear_list
add i.remote_node to x.Lower_Nodes
if end_b is in x.Higher_Nodes
foreach interface i in ear_list
add i.local_node to x.Higher_Nodes
else
foreach node x where x.localroot is block_root
if end_b is in x.Lower_Nodes
foreach interface i in ear_list
add i.local_node to x.Lower_Nodes
if end_a is in x.Higher_Nodes
foreach interface i in ear_list
add i.remote_node to x.Higher_Nodes
Figure 34: Algorithm to assign links of an ear direction
A goal of the algorithm is to find the shortest cycles and ears. An
ear is started by going to a neighbor x of an IN_GADAG node y. The
path from x to an IN_GADAG node is minimal, since it is computed via
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
SPF. Since a shortest path is made of shortest paths, to find the
shortest ears requires reaching from the set of IN_GADAG nodes to the
closest node that isn't IN_GADAG. Therefore, an ordered tree is
maintained of interfaces that could be explored from the IN_GADAG
nodes. The interfaces are ordered by their characteristics of
metric, local loopback address, remote loopback address, and ifindex,
as in the algorithm previously described in Figure 14.
The algorithm ignores interfaces picked from the ordered tree that
belong to the block root if the block in which the interface is
present already has an ear that has been computed. This is necessary
since we allow at most one incoming interface to a block root in each
block. This requirement stems from the way next-hops are computed as
will be seen in Section 5.6. After any ear gets computed, we
traverse the newly added nodes to the GADAG and insert interfaces
whose far end is not yet on the GADAG to the ordered tree for later
processing.
Finally, cut-links are a special case because there is no point in
doing an SPF on a block of 2 nodes. The algorithm identifies cut-
links simply as links where both ends of the link are cut-vertices.
Cut-links can simply be added to the GADAG with both OUTGOING and
INCOMING specified on their interfaces.
add_eligible_interfaces_of_node(ordered_intfs_tree,node)
for each interface of node
if intf.remote_node.IN_GADAG is false
insert(intf,ordered_intfs_tree)
check_if_block_has_ear(x,block_id)
block_has_ear = false
for all interfaces of x
if (intf.remote_node.block_id == block_id) &&
(intf.remote_node.IN_GADAG is true)
block_has_ear = true
return block_has_ear
Construct_GADAG_via_SPF(topology, root)
Compute_Localroot (root,root)
Assign_Block_ID(root,0)
root.IN_GADAG = true
add_eligible_interfaces_of_node(ordered_intfs_tree,root)
while ordered_intfs_tree is not empty
cand_intf = remove_lowest(ordered_intfs_tree)
if cand_intf.remote_node.IN_GADAG is false
if L(cand_intf.remote_node) == D(cand_intf.remote_node)
// Special case for cut-links
cand_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
cand_intf.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
cand_intf.OUTGOING = true
cand_intf.INCOMING = true
cand_intf.remote_intf.OUTGOING = true
cand_intf.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
cand_intf.remote_node.IN_GADAG = true
add_eligible_interfaces_of_node(
ordered_intfs_tree,cand_intf.remote_node)
else
if (cand_intf.remote_node.local_root ==
cand_intf.local_node) &&
check_if_block_has_ear
(cand_intf.local_node,
cand_intf.remote_node.block_id))
/* Skip the interface since the block root
already has an incoming interface in the
block */
else
ear_end = SPF_for_Ear(cand_intf.local_node,
cand_intf.remote_node,
cand_intf.remote_node.localroot,
SPF method)
y = ear_end.spf_prev_hop
while y.local_node is not cand_intf.local_node
add_eligible_interfaces_of_node(
ordered_intfs_tree,
y.local_node)
y = y.local_node.spf_prev_intf
Figure 35: SPF-based GADAG algorithm
Appendix B. Option 3: Computing GADAG using a hybrid method
In this option, the idea is to combine the salient features of the
above two options. To this end, we process nodes as they get added
to the GADAG just like in the lowpoint inheritance by maintaining a
stack of nodes. This ensures that we do not need to maintain lower
and higher sets at each node to ascertain ear directions since the
ears will always be directed from the node being processed towards
the end of the ear. To compute the ear however, we resort to an SPF
to have the possibility of better ears (path lentghs) thus giving
more flexibility than the restricted use of lowpoint/dfs parents.
Regarding ears involving a block root, unlike the SPF method which
ignored interfaces of the block root after the first ear, in the
hybrid method we would have to process all interfaces of the block
root before moving on to other nodes in the block since the direction
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
of an ear is pre-determined. Thus, whenever the block already has an
ear computed, and we are processing an interface of the block root,
we mark the block root as unusable before the SPF run that computes
the ear. This ensures that the SPF terminates at some node other
than the block-root. This in turn guarantees that the block-root has
only one incoming interface in each block, which is necessary for
correctly computing the next-hops on the GADAG.
As in the SPF gadag, bridge ears are handled as a special case.
The entire algorithm is shown below in Figure 36
find_spf_stack_ear(stack, x, y, xy_intf, block_root)
if L(y) == D(y)
// Special case for cut-links
xy_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
xy_intf.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
xy_intf.OUTGOING = true
xy_intf.INCOMING = true
xy_intf.remote_intf.OUTGOING = true
xy_intf.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
xy_intf.remote_node.IN_GADAG = true
push y onto stack
return
else
if (y.local_root == x) &&
check_if_block_has_ear(x,y.block_id)
//Avoid the block root during the SPF
Mark x as TEMP_UNUSABLE
end_ear = SPF_for_Ear(x,y,block_root,hybrid)
If x was set as TEMP_UNUSABLE, clear it
cur = end_ear
while (cur != y)
intf = cur.spf_prev_hop
prev = intf.local_node
intf.UNDIRECTED = false
intf.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
intf.OUTGOING = true
intf.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
push prev onto stack
cur = prev
xy_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
xy_intf.remote_intf.UNDIRECTED = false
xy_intf.OUTGOING = true
xy_intf.remote_intf.INCOMING = true
return
Construct_GADAG_via_hybrid(topology,root)
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Compute_Localroot (root,root)
Assign_Block_ID(root,0)
root.IN_GADAG = true
Initialize Stack to empty
push root onto Stack
while (Stack is not empty)
x = pop(Stack)
for each interface intf of x
y = intf.remote_node
if y.IN_GADAG is false
find_spf_stack_ear(stack, x, y, intf, y.block_root)
Figure 36: Hybrid GADAG algorithm
Authors' Addresses
Gabor Sandor Enyedi (editor)
Ericsson
Konyves Kalman krt 11
Budapest 1097
Hungary
Email: Gabor.Sandor.Enyedi@ericsson.com
Andras Csaszar
Ericsson
Konyves Kalman krt 11
Budapest 1097
Hungary
Email: Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com
Alia Atlas (editor)
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
USA
Email: akatlas@juniper.net
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft MRT FRR Algorithm February 2014
Chris Bowers
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: cbowers@juniper.net
Abishek Gopalan
University of Arizona
1230 E Speedway Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85721
USA
Email: abishek@ece.arizona.edu
Enyedi, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 61]
~~