Routing Area Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft B. Decraene
Intended status: Standards Track Orange
Expires: August 18, 2014 P. Francois
IMDEA Networks
C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems
February 14, 2014

Microloop prevention by introducing a local convergence delay


This document describes a mechanism for link-state routing protocols to prevent local transient forwarding loops in case of link failure. This mechanism Proposes a two-steps convergence by introducing a delay between the convergence of the node adjacent to the topology change and the network wide convergence.

As this mechanism delays the IGP convergence it may only be used for planned maintenance or when fast reroute protects the traffic between the link failure and the IGP convergence.

Simulations using real network topologies have been performed and show that local loops are a significant portion (>50%) of the total forwarding loops.

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].

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

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 ( 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

     A ------ B
     |        |
     |        |
     D--------C        All the links have a metric of 1 except BC=5

     Figure 1	 

In figure 1, upon link AD down event, for the destination A, if D updates its forwarding entry before C, a transient forwarding loop occurs between C and D. We have a similar loop for link up event, if C updates its forwarding entry A before D.

2. Overview of the solution

This document defines a two-step convergence initiated by the router detecting the failure and advertising the topological changes in the IGP. This introduces a delay between the convergence of the local router and the network wide convergence. This delay is positive in case of "down" events and negative in case of "up" events.

This ordered convergence, is similar to the ordered FIB proposed defined in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib], but limited to only one hop distance. As a consequence, it is simpler and becomes a local only feature not requiring interoperability; at the cost of only covering the transient forwarding loops involving this local router. The proposed mechanism also reuses some concept described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis] with some limitation and improvements.

3. Specification

3.1. Definitions

This document will refer to the following existing IGP timers:

This document introduces the following two new timers :

3.2. Current IGP reactions

Upon a change of status on an adjacency/link, the existing behavior of the router advertising the event is the following:

  1. UP/Down event is notified to IGP.
  2. IGP processes the notification and postpones the reaction in LSP_GEN_TIMER msec.
  3. Upon LSP_GEN_TIMER expiration, IGP updates its LSP/LSA and floods it.
  4. SPF is scheduled in SPF_TIMER msec.
  5. Upon SPF_TIMER expiration, SPF is computed and RIB/FIB are updated.

3.3. Local events

In the next sections, we will use the concept of local events versus remote events. The notion of event we are using in this document is linked to IGP link state advertisements and not network events, as a single network event would create multiple IGP link state advertisement within the network.

A local event is a set of IGP link state advertisements describing only a change of a local component of the computing router (e.g. a link). As opposite to a remote event being a set of IGP link state advertisements describing any other type of changes.

       +--- E ----+--------+
       |          |        |
A ---- B -------- C ------ D

Example :

3.4. Local delay

3.4.1. Link down event

Upon an adjacency/link down event, this document introduces a change in step 5 in order to delay the local convergence compared to the network wide convergence: the node SHOULD delay the forwarding entry updates by ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER. Such delay SHOULD only be introduced if all the LSDB modifications processed are only reporting down local events . Note that determining that all topological change are only local down events requires analyzing all modified LSP/LSA as a local link or node failure will typically be notified by multiple nodes. If a subsequent LSP/LSA is received/updated and a new SPF computation is triggered before the expiration of ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER, then the same evaluation SHOULD be performed.

As a result of this addition, routers local to the failure will converge slower than remote routers. Hence it SHOULD only be done for non urgent convergence, such as for administrative de-activation (maintenance) or when the traffic is Fast ReRouted.

3.4.2. Link up event

Upon an adjacency/link up event, this document introduces the following change in step 3 where the node SHOULD:

As as result of this addition, routers local to the failure will converge faster than remote routers.

If this mechanism is used in cooperation with "LDP IGP Synchronization" as defined in [RFC5443] then the mechanism defined in RFC 5443 is applied first, followed by the mechanism defined in this document. More precisely, the procedure defined in this document is applied once the LDP session is considered "fully operational" as per [RFC5443].

4. Applicability

As previously stated, the mechanism only avoids the forwarding loops on the links between the node local to the failure and its neighbor. Forwarding loops may still occur on other links.

4.1. Applicable case : local loops

     A ------ B ----- E
     |              / |
     |             /  |
 G---D------------C   F        All the links have a metric of 1 

     Figure 2	 

Let us consider the traffic from G to F. The primary path is G->D->C->E->F. When link CE fails, if C updates its forwarding entry for F before D, a transient loop occurs. This is sub-optimal as C has FRR enabled and it breaks the FRR forwarding while all upstream routers are still forwarding the traffic to itself.

By implementing the mechanism defined in this document on C, when the CE link fails, C delays the update of his forwarding entry to F, in order to let some time for D to converge. FRR keeps protecting the traffic during this period. When the timer expires on C, forwarding entry to F is updated. There is no transient forwarding loop on the link CD.

4.2. Non applicable case : remote loops

     A ------ B ----- E --- H
     |                      |
     |                      |
 G---D--------C ------F --- J ---- K    
 All the links have a metric of 1 except BE=15    

     Figure 3	 

Let us consider the traffic from G to K. The primary path is G->D->C->F->J->K. When the CF link fails, if C updates its forwarding entry to K before D, a transient loop occurs between C and D.

By implementing the mechanism defined in this document on C, when the link CF fails, C delays the update of his forwarding entry to K, letting time for D to converge. When the timer expires on C, forwarding entry to F is updated. There is no transient forwarding loop between C and D. However, a transient forwarding loop may still occur between D and A. In this scenario, this mechanism is not enough to address all the possible forwarding loops. However, it does not create additional traffic loss. Besides, in some cases -such as when the nodes update their FIB in the following order C, A, D, for example because the router A is quicker than D to converge- the mechanism may still avoid the forwarding loop that was occuring.

5. Simulations

Simulations have been run on multiple service provider topologies. So far, only link down event have been tested.

Number of Repair/Dst that may loop
Topology Gain
T1 71%
T2 81%
T3 62%
T4 50%
T5 70%
T6 70%
T7 59%
T8 77%

We evaluated the efficiency of the mechanism on eight different service provider topologies (different network size, design). The benefit is displayed in the table above. The benefit is evaluated as follows:

On topology 1, 71% of the transient forwarding loops created by the failure of any link are prevented by implementing the local delay. The analysis shows that all local loops are obviously solved and only remote loops are remaining.

6. Deployment considerations

Transient forwarding loops have the following drawbacks :

This local delay proposal is a transient forwarding loop avoidance mechanism (like OFIB). Even if it only address local transient loops, , the efficiency versus complexity comparison of the mechanism makes it a good solution. It is also incrementally deployable with incremental benefits, which makes it an attractive option for both vendors to implement and Service Providers to deploy. Delaying convergence time is not an issue if we consider that the traffic is protected during the convergence.

7. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce change in term of IGP security. The operation is internal to the router. The local delay does not increase the attack vector as an attacker could only trigger this mechanism if he already has be ability to disable or enable an IGP link. The local delay does not increase the negative consequences as if an attacker has the ability to disable or enable an IGP link, it can already harm the network by creating instability and harm the traffic by creating forwarding packet loss and forwarding loss for the traffic crossing that link.

8. Acknowledgements

We wish to thanks the authors of [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib] for introducing the concept of ordered convergence: Mike Shand, Stewart Bryant, Stefano Previdi, and Olivier Bonaventure.

9. IANA Considerations

This document has no actions for IANA.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5715] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free Convergence", RFC 5715, January 2010.
[RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A. and L. Fang, "LDP IGP Synchronization", RFC 5443, March 2009.

10.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib] Shand, M., Bryant, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Francois, P. and O. Bonaventure, "Framework for Loop-free convergence using oFIB", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib-09, January 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M. and S. Ning, "Remote LFA FRR", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-01, December 2012.
[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.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis] Zinin, A., "Analysis and Minimization of Microloops in Link-state Routing Protocols", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-01, October 2005.

Authors' Addresses

Stephane Litkowski Orange EMail:
Bruno Decraene Orange EMail:
Pierre Francois IMDEA Networks EMail:
Clarence Fils Fils Cisco Systems EMail: