Telecommunication Networks

Dr. Ing. Vo Que Son

Email: sonvq@hcmut.edu.vn

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

Content
Chapter 5: MPLS Networks
MPLS
DiffServ in MPLS
MPLS TE
FATE schemes

Chapter 6: Traffic Engineering

M/M/1, M/M/c models
M/G/1, M/D/1 models
Queuing networks
Application of queuing theory in Network QoS

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

Internet core network

Router based core network

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

Internet core network (cont)

Processing can not meet bandwidth demands
Bottle-neck in software-based routers
Available router interfaces not provide traffic
aggregation
Metric-based routing was no longer scalable
Densely connected networks lead to inefficient use of
network resources
Destination based routing tends to aggregate all
traffic to the same destination: not utilize links

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

Internet core network (cont)

Switch based core network

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

Internet core network (cont)

Faster and simpler forwarding, better traffic aggregation
Fix size cells can be handled in hardware to speed up
Connection-oriented forwarding algorithm improves
performance gain: based on short fix length connection
identifiers
The ASIC technology : IP packets can be forwarded with high
speed. ATM interfaces have even fallen behind the latest
increases of optical network (packet over SDH/SONET)
Waste of bandwidth : 5/48 bytes of header.
Complex network management: physical ATM switched
infrastructure and logical IP network topology. Each layer uses
its own addressing scheme and routing protocol
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

Internet core network (cont)

The n-squared problem : when adding or shutting down any
router will create enormous signaling load
IGP stress : intra-domain routing is not conceived for fully
meshed topology. With high number of routing peer routers:
too much routing information has to be exchanged

Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) can offer

solutions that create a combination of the advantages
from both of these worlds

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

MPLS NGN

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

MPLS NGN (cont)

Forwarding based on label: speed up processing at node
Forwarding mechanism: label (explicit routing) or IP header
(hop-by-hop routing)
Operating on any layer 2 technologies: ATM, Ethernet, FR
Allows for both traffic aggregation and disaggregation
Support VPN : using 64-bit VPN address (total 92 bits)
Allow SPs embed into the IP network : TE and traditional QoS
of layer 2 : using DSCP and processing queues based on its
packets priority
Easy management and operation

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

Traditional IP Routing
Choosing the next hop
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) to populate the routing
table
Route look up based on the IP address
Find the next router to which the packet has to be sent
Replace the layer 2 address

Each router performs these steps

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

10

Traditional IP Routing (contd)

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

11

Distributing Routing Information

Address
Prefix

Path

Address
Prefix

Path

125.50

125.50

145.40

145.40

Address
Prefix

Path

125.50

125.50
0
3

You can reach 125.50 and

145.40 through me

You can reach 125.50

through me
1

You can reach 145.40

through me

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

145.40

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

12

Distributing Routing Information(contd)

Address
Prefix

Path

Address
Prefix

Path

125.50

125.50

145.40

145.40

0
3

Data
Data

125.50.33.85

Address
Prefix

Path

125.50

125.50
2

125.50.33.85

1
145.40

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

13

Disadvantages

Header analysis performed at each hop

Increased demand on routers
Utilizes the best available path
Some congested links and some underutilized links!
Degradation of throughput
Long delays

More losses

No QoS
No service differentiation
Not possible with connectionless protocols

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

14

Need for MPLS

Rapid growth of Internet
New latency dependent applications
Quality of Service (QoS)
Less time at the routers

Traffic Engineering
Flexibility in routing packets

Connection-oriented forwarding techniques with

connectionless IP
Utilizes the IP header information to maintain interoperability with IP
based networks
Decides on the path of a packet before sending it

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

15

What is MPLS?
Multi Protocol supports protocols even other than IP
Supports IPv4, IPv6, IPX, AppleTalk at the network layer
Supports Ethernet, Token Ring, FDDI, ATM, Frame Relay, PPP at the link
layer

Label short fixed length identifier to determine a route

Labels are added to the top of the IP packet
Labels are assigned when the packet enters the MPLS domain

Switching forwarding a packet

Packets are forwarded based on the label value
NOT on the basis of IP header information

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

16

MPLS Background
Integration of layer 2 and layer 3
Simplified connection-oriented forwarding of layer 2
Flexibility and scalability of layer 3 routing

MPLS does not replace IP; it supplements IP

Traffic can be marked, classified and explicitly routed
QoS can be achieved through MPLS

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

17

IP/MPLS comparison
Routing decisions
IP routing based on destination IP address
Label switching based on labels

Entire IP header analysis

IP routing performed at each hop of the packets path in
the network
Label switching performed only at the ingress router

Support for unicast and multicast data

IP routing requires special multicast routing and
forwarding algorithms
Label switching requires only one forwarding algorithm
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

18

Key Acronyms
MPLS MultiProtocol Label Switching
FEC Forward Equivalence Class
LER Label Edge Router
LSR Label Switching Router
LIB Label Information Base
LSP Label Switched Path
LDP Label Distribution Protocol

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

19

Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)

A group of packets that require the same forwarding
treatment across the same path
Packets are grouped based on any of the following
Address prefix
Host address
Quality of Service (QoS)

FEC is encoded as the label

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

20

FEC example
Assume packets have the destination address as
124.48.45.20
143.67.25.77
143.67.84.22
124.48.66.90
FEC 1

label x

143.67.25.77
143.67.84.22

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

FEC 2 label y

124.48.45.20
124.48.66.90

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

21

FEC example (contd)

- Assume packets have the destination address and QoS
requirements as
124.48.45.20
qos = 1
143.67.25.77
qos = 1
143.67.84.22
qos = 3
124.48.66.90
qos = 4
143.67.12.01
qos = 3
FEC 1 label a

FEC 2 label b

143.67.25.77

124.48.45.20

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

FEC 3 label c

143.67.84.22
143.67.12.01

FEC 4 label d

124.48.66.90

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

22

Example of a MPLS network

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

23

Label Edge Router (LER)

Can be an ATM switch or a router
Ingress LER performs the following:
Receives the packet
Adds label
Forwards the packet into the MPLS domain

Egress LER removes the label and delivers the packet

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

24

Label Switching Router (LSR)

A router/switch that supports MPLS
Can be a router
Can be an ATM switch + label switch controller
Label swapping
Each LSR examines the label on top of the stack
Uses the Label Information Base (LIB) to decide the
outgoing path and the outgoing label
Removes the old label and attaches the new label
Forwards the packet on the predetermined path

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

25

Label Switching Router (contd)

Upstream Router (Ru) router that sends packets
Downstream Router(Rd) router that receives
packets
Need not be an end router
Rd for one link can be the Ru for the other

Ru

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Rd

Ru

Rd

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

26

Label Switched Path(LSP)

LSP defines the path through LSRs from ingress to
egress router
FEC is determined at the LER-ingress
LSPs are unidirectional
LSP might deviate from the IGP shortest path

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

27

Label Switched Path(LSP)

LSP

LSP
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

28

Shim Header
A short, fixed length identifier (32 bits)
Sent with each packet
Local between two routers
Can have different labels if entering from different routers
One label for one FEC
Decided by the downstream router
LSR binds a label to an FEC
It then informs the upstream LSR of the binding

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

29

Shim Header (contd)

EXP field

Also known as Class of Service (CoS) bits

Used for experimentation to indicate packets treatment
Queuing as well as scheduling
Different packets can receive different treatment depending on the
CoS value

S bit
Supports hierarchical label stack
1 if the label is the bottom most label in the label stack
0 for all other labels

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

30

Time To Live (TTL)

TTL value decremented by 1 when it passes through an LSR
If TTL value = 0 before the destination, discard the packet
Avoids loops may exist because of some misconfigurations
Multicast scoping limit the scope of a packet
Supporting the traceroute command

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

31

TTL (contd)
Shim header
Has an explicit TTL field
Initially loaded from the IP header TTL field
At the egress LER, value of TTL is copied into the TTL field
of the IP header

Data link layer header (e.g VPI/VCI)

No explicit TTL field

Ingress LER estimates the LSP length
Decrements the TTL count by the LSP length
If initial count of TTL less than the LSP length, discard the
packet

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

32

Label: AToM
ATM
VCI/VPI field of ATM header

Frame Relay
DLCI field of FR header

PPP/LAN
shim header inserted between layer 2 and layer 3

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

33

Label stack
MPLS supports hierarchy
A packet can carry a number of labels
Each LSR processes the topmost label
Irrespective of the level of hierarchy

If traffic crosses several networks, it can be tunneled

across them
Use stacked labels
Advantage reduces the LIB table of each router
drastically
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

34

Label stack (contd)

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

35

Label stack (contd)

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

36

Labels scope and uniqueness

Labels are local between two LSRs
Rd might give label L1 for FEC F and distribute it to
Ru1
At the same time, it might give a label L2 to FEC F and
distribute it to Ru2
L1 might not necessarily be equal to L2
Can there be a same label for different FECs?

Generally, NO
BUT no such specification
LSR must have different label spaces to accommodate both
SHIM header specifies that different label spaces used for
unicast packets and multicast packets

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

37

Invalid labels
What should be done if an LSR receives an invalid
label?
Should it be forwarded as an unlabeled IP packet?
Should it be discarded?

MUST be discarded!
Forwarding it can cause a loop
Same treatment if there is no valid outgoing label

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

38

Route selection
Refers to the method of selecting an LSP for a
particular FEC
Done by LDP
Set of procedures and messages
Messages exchanged between LSRs to establish an LSP
LSRs associate an FEC with each LSP created

Two types of LDP

Hop by hop routing
Explicit routing

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

39

Route selection (contd)

Hop by Hop
Allows each LSR to individually choose the next hop
This is the usual mode today in existing IP networks
No overhead processing as compared to IP

Explicit routing
A single router, generally the ingress LER,specifies several
or all of the LSRs in the LSP
Provides functionality for traffic engineering and QoS
o Several: loosely explicitly routed
o All: strictly explicitly routed

E.g. CR-LDP, TE-RSVP

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

40

Label Information Base (LIB)

Table maintained by the LSRs
Contents of the table

Incoming label
Outgoing label
Outgoing path
Address prefix

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Incoming
label

Address Prefix

Outgoing
Path

Outgoing
label

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

41

MPLS forwarding
Existing routing protocols establish routes
LDP establishes label to route mappings
LDP creates LIB entries for each LSR
Ingress LER receives packet,adds a label
LSRs forward labeled packets using label swapping
Egress LER removes the label and delivers the packet

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

42

FEC in MPLS

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

43

MPLS forwarding (contd)

Address
Prefix
Address
Prefix

Out
Path

In
Label

Out
Label

Address
Prefix

Out In
Path Label

Out
Label

125.50

125.50

145.40

145.40

125.50

0
3

Out In
Path Label

Out
Label

125.50
2

Use label 9 for 125.50

Use label 2 for 125.50 and

label 1 for 145.40

1
145.40

Use label 8 for 145.40

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

44

MPLS forwarding (contd)

Address
Prefix
Address
Prefix

Out
Path

In
Label

Out
Label

Address
Prefix

Out In
Path Label

Out
Label

125.50

125.50

145.40

145.40

125.50

0
3

Data
Data

125.50.33.85 2

Out In
Path Label

Out
Label

125.50
2

125.50.33.85 9

1
145.40

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

45

DiffServ & MPLS

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

46
46

DiffServ Architecture

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

47

The IETF DiffServ Model

Use 6 bits in IP header to sort traffic into
Behavior AggregatesAKA Classes!
Defines a number of Per Hop Behaviors - PHBs
Two-Ingredient Recipe:
Condition the Traffic at the Edges
Invoke the PHBs in the Core

Use PHBs to Construct Services such as Virtual

Leased Line!

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

48

Defined PHBs
Expedited Forwarding (EF): RFC2598
dedicated low delay queue
Comparable to Guaranteed B/W in IntServ

Assured Forwarding (AF): RFC2597

4 queues 3 drop preferences
Comparable to Controlled Load in IntServ

Class Selector: Compat. with IP Prec

Default (best effort)

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

49

AF PHB Group Definition

AF Class 1: 001dd0
AF Class 2: 010dd0
AF Class 3: 011dd0
AF Class 4: 100dd0

dd = drop preference
Eg. AF12 = Class 1, Drop 2, thus 001100

4 independently-forwarded AF classes
Within each AF class, 3 levels of drop priority! This is very useful to protect
conforming to a purchased, guarantee rate, while increasing chances of
packets exceeding contracted rate being dropped if congestion is
experienced in the core.
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

50

DiffServ Scalability via Aggregation

1000s of
flows

Diff-Serv:
Diff-Serv:
Aggregation on Edge
Many flows associated with a
Class (marked with DSCP)

Aggregated Processing in Core

Scheduling/Dropping (PHB)
based on DSCP

DiffServ scalability comes from:

- aggregation of traffic on Edge
- processing of Aggregate only in Core
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

51

MPLS Scalability via Aggregation

1000s of
flows

MPLS:
Aggregation on Edge
Many flows associated with a
Forwarding Equivalent Class
(marked with label)

MPLS:
Aggregated Processing in Core
Forwarding based on label

MPLS scalability comes from:

- aggregation of traffic on Edge
- processing of Aggregate only in Core
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

52

MPLS & DiffServ - The Perfect Match!

1000s of
flows

MPLS: flows
associated with
FEC, mapped into
one label
DS: flows associated
with Class, mapped to
DSCP

MPLS:
Switching
based on
Label

DS:
Scheduling/Dropping
based on DSCP

Because of same scalability goals, both models do:

- aggregation of traffic on Edge
- processing of Aggregate only in Core
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

53

MPLS:Whats New? The Shim Header

Non-MPLS
Diff-Serv Domain
IPv4 Packet

MPLS
Diff-Serv Domain
MPLS Header
DSCP

DSCP

0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
Label
| EXP |S|
TTL
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

DSCP field is not directly visible to MPLS Label Switch Routers (they
forward based on MPLS Header)
Information on DiffServ must be made visible to LSR in MPLS Header
(using EXP field / Label)
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

54

DS o MPLS : Coloring MPLS Frames

This describes how DiffServ information is
conveyed to LSRs in MPLS Header
Two methods:
E-LSP {{ Cisco IOS 12.1(5)T, 12.0(11)ST }}
Queue inferred from Label and EXP field
Drop priority inferred from label and EXP
field

L-LSP {{ Planned, once an RFC }}

Queue inferred exclusively from Label
Drop priority inferred from EXP field

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

55

The E-LSP Story...

LDP/RSVP

LSR

LDP/RSVP

E-LSP
AF1
EF

E-LSPs can be established by various label binding protocols (LDP or

RSVP)no new Signalling Needed.
Example above illustrates support of EF and AF1 on a single E-LSP (Note:
This is the plain old LSP established for MPLS Switching)
Note: EF and AF1 packets travel on single LSP (single label) but are
enqueued in different queues (different EXP values)

Queue & Drop Precedence is selected based on EXP

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

56

L- LSP Supporting 64 Classes!

LDP/RSVP

LDP/RSVP

LSR

L-LSPs

L-LSPs can be established by various label binding protocols (LDP or

RSVP)EXTENSIONS REQUIRED!
Example above illustrates support of EF and AF1 on separate L-LSPs
EF and AF1 packets travel on separate LSPs and are enqueued in different
queues (different label values)
Queue selected based on Label, Drop Precedence Selected with Optional EXP
field.
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

57

MPLS Traffic Engineering

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

58
58

The Fish Problem

R8

R3
R4
R5
R2

R1

R6

R7

IP Uses Shortest Path Destination-Based Routing

Shortest Path May Not Be the only path
Alternate Paths May Be under-Utilized while the
shortest Path Is over-Utilized
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

59

An LSP Tunnel: (A Constrained MPLS LSP)

R8

R3

R4
R5
R2

R1

R6

R7

Labels, Like VCIs (ATM) Can Be Used to Establish Virtual Circuits

Normal Route R1->R2->R3->R4->R5
Tunnel: R1->R2->R6->R7->R4
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

60

LSP Tunnel Setup

R9

R8
R3
R4
R2

Pop

R5

R1

32
49
17

R6

R7
22

Setup: Path (R1->R2->R6->R7->R4->R9) Tunnel ID 5, Path ID 1

Reply: Communicates Labels and Label Operations
Reserves Bandwidth on Each Link
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

61

Real-World MPLS TE Use!

Find route & set-up tunnel for 20 Mb/s from POP1 to POP4
Find route & set-up tunnel for 10 Mb/s from POP2 to POP4

WAN area
POP4

POP1

POP

POP2

POP
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

POP
Telecom Networks
HCMUT

62

MPLS TE & QoS The Relationship

MPLS TE designed as tool to improve backbone
efficiency independently of core QoS techniques:
MPLS TE compute routes for aggregates across all PHBs.
A Single Chunk of Bandwidth requested for the
Tunnel
MPLS TE performs admission control over a global b/w pool.
Un-aware of bandwidth allocated to each Class / PHB

MPLS TE and MPLS DiffServ:

Can run simultaneously in a network.
Can provide their own individual benefits
TE distributes aggregate load
DiffServ provides differentiation)
Are unaware of each other

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

63

LDP: Label Distribution Protocol

Label Distribution Protocol

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

64

LDP

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

65

Traffic Aggregate in IP networks

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

66

Traffic Aggregate in MPLS networks

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

67

Traffic Aggregate in MPLS networks

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

68

TE Fast Reroute - Tunneling

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

69

TE Global Fast Reroute (Makam)

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

70

TE Region Fast Reroute

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

71

TE Local Fast Reroute

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

72

TE Haskin Fast Reroute

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

73

LDP - Advantages
Explicit routing
Set up a LSP between Ingress Router and Egress
Router
Label request for each hop on down-stream
Label mapping : up-stream
Errors occur: router sends a alarm message to
neighbors or operating routers to re-direct for current
LSP
Less resources (compared with RSVP)

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

74

LDP - Disadvantages
Slow error recovery
Not support dynamically re-optimization of traffic flows
Transient periods: efficiency of Resource Location could be
influenced by routing traffic.
Require means to restore the LSP to the original routes once
congestion has subsided

FATE, FATE+ : using dynamic reroute mechanism

FATE++ : combination of 2 above algorithms with
improvements

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

75

Weighted Fair Queue Monitoring packets

per-class buffering

Input
link

10-6
IP L

Classifier

Scheduler

IP L

Output link
IP L

10-4
IP L

Successfully
inserted packets

Template

Output
buffer

Management

Buffer ID

Unsuccessful insertion.
Destroy packet.

CCCDCCCDCCCD

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

76

FATE - Fast Acting Traffic Engineering

At each LSR:
If packet loss: calculate packet loss in buffer
If this over pre-defined threshold, generate a
Congestion Indicator (CIN) message to Ingress
Router on upstream
Set up a timer for CIN regeneration
CIN: Congestion Indication Notification

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

77

FATE Mechanism (cont)

At other LSRs on up-stream: when receiving CIN
If timer not expired, forward CIN without appending infor
Otherwise, add its congested info before forwarding

At Ingress LSR: when receiving CIN message

Decide that the packet loss it is currently experiencing
remains sufficiently low for it to continue to meet its SLA
requirements, allowing no further action to be taken
Renegotiate for a new requirements along existing LSP
(higher priority buffer along same path, within same LSR)
Negotiate for a new quality requirements along an
alternative LSP
Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

78

FATE CIN information

Identity of the LSP that is experiencing congestion
The LSRs this loss is occurring in
The current loss in the buffers the LSP is traversing
The current loss of the LSP

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

79

FATE Scalability
How to monitor thousands of LSPs ?
How a MPLS network applies congestion control mechanism
in a situation of numerous flows?
How can SPs ensure the customers SLA is met while
traversing this network?

Solutions
In a single domain: exchanging messages can be easily handled
under the control of Ingress and Egress LERs
In a Generalized MPLS domain : assign Virtual Source/Virtual
Destination (VS/VD) of each domain using label stacking

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

80

FATE Label stacking

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

81

FATE Advantages/Disadvantages
Fast acting mechanism
Allow individual LSPs to be dynamically remapped to
QoS buffers
Provide a notification from congested LSR to Ingress
LER
Can not make decision about the current LSP
Suitable in strictly routed LSPs

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

82

FATE+ - Extension of FATE

Remove generation of CIN message
Redistributing traffic flows while fully utilizing all available LSRs
and links
Ensure the customers SLAs are met
Suitable in loosely routed LSPs
Scale well in large WANs
Permit the congested LSR to make decisions :
Transfer the CR-LSP on to a higher buffer stream
Re-route the CR-LSP via an alternative downstream LSR
Re-route the CR-LSP via an alternative upstream LSR

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

83

FATE+ - Transfer LSP to a higher buffer stream

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

84

FATE+ - Reroute via a alternative downstream LSR

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

85

FATE+ - Reroute via a alternative upstream LSR

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

86

FATE+ - Disadvantages
Loop packets
Can not reroute when:
Finding a new LSP via downstream LER but no
resources
Congested LER and its neighbors can not reroute
but other LERs can

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

87

FATE+ - Loop packets

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

88

FATE+ - No resources

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

89

FATE++ - Dual FATE and FATE+

Telecomm. Dept.
Faculty of EEE

Telecom Networks
HCMUT

90