1 / 8

Enhancing Resiliency in SPRING Networks: Approaches and Co-existence Strategies

This document discusses how to achieve resiliency in SPRING-like networks by analyzing various protection strategies. It explores practical solutions stemming from insights gained through collaboration with network operators. Key concepts include path protection, management-free local protection, and managed local protection. The coexistence of these methodologies within a single network is also examined, highlighting the configuration of multiple AdjSIDs to support diverse protection schemes. This overview aims to provide actionable insights into optimizing network reliability and service continuity.

lore
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Resiliency in SPRING Networks: Approaches and Co-existence Strategies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case-00 Pierre Francois, IMDEA Networks Institute Clarence Filsfils, Cisco Systems Bruno Decraene, Orange RobShakir, BT IETF 89, SPRING WG

  2. Objectives • Analyze how resiliency can be achieved in SPRING-like networks • Illustrate various approaches stemming from discussion with operators • Discuss co-existence of approaches in a network

  3. Current cases • Path protection • Management-free local protection • Managed local protection

  4. Path protection • A fully controls a path with AdjSIDs[BC, CD, DE, EZ], oif B • A protects that path • In charge of detecting path failure (e.g., BFD) • Pre-installs failover path, [FG, GH, HI, IZ], oif F B C D E A Z F G H I

  5. Management free local protection • C uses a NodeSID based tunnel to E • Nodes on the path locally protect E • Solution SHOULD provide • 100% link, node, srlg • Automated computation by the node • Minimization of service transients B C D E A Z F G H I

  6. Managed local protection • Bypass of by-default local protection provided by C’s IGP for Z • C installs backup [H], oif G for destination Z, in order to avoid CH • Managed backup paths could stem from • Explicit configuration, or • high-level constraints defined on the path B C D E A Z F G H I

  7. Co-existence • Need to support different protection schemes in one network • For example, using SR: • Configure Multiple AdjSID for a link X-Y XY1, XY2 • XY1 is enabled for local protection • XY2 is not enabled for local protection • Use XY1 for services where local FRR is fine • Use XY2 for services requiring path protection

  8. Thank you! pierre.francois@imdea.org cfilsfil@cisco.com bruno.decraene@orange.com rob.shakir@bt.com

More Related