Tag Archives: segment routing

Segment Routed L2VPN TE – Cisco IOS-XR

Hi All

Let’s see Segment routing in action in this blog particularly on IOS-XR. Segment routing is quite new concept which is picking pace these days. In my earlier blog I listed the differences between Segment routing and RSVP-TE and SR can replace it and there are certain areas where it may not be able to help however L3VPN and L2VPN Traffic Engineering is surely one area where it can be used and in this blog we will use SR as TE while configuring the L2VPN.

For this we will take NCS5508 as our router platform in below topology where we will configure the L2VPN SR-TE between NCS5508-1 to NCS5508-3 via NCS5508-8.

Segment Routing in IOS-XR

 

Let’s see the SR config first.

SR beauty is that there is no special protocol needed to run it. SR Labels will be advertised in OSPF/ISIS and these protocols have been uplifted to carry them. SR Labels are carried in Type 10 Opaque area LSA as TLV.

If you are familiar with OSPF config in IOS-XR, most of the config below looks similar to you as we have just enabled OSPF under area0 and added interfaces under it.

However there are 3 configs highlighted in RED which we have enabled for Segment routing.

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show running-config router ospf
router ospf 1
 nsr
 distribute link-state
 segment-routing mpls
 nsf ietf
 segment-routing sr-prefer
 area 0
 mpls traffic-eng
 interface Loopback0
 passive enable
 prefix-sid index 1 explicit-null
 !
 interface HundredGigE0/1/0/0
 cost 1
 network point-to-point
 !
 interface FortyGigE0/2/0/8
 cost 4
 network point-to-point
 !
 interface FortyGigE0/2/0/10
 cost 4
 network point-to-point
 !
 interface FortyGigE0/2/0/18
 cost 4
 network point-to-point
 !
 !
 mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0
!

segment-routing mpls , this command causes OSPF to originate RI LSA, Extended Prefix and Extended Link LSAs. It enables MPLS on all interfaces in area(s) enabled for SR and programs SR MPLS labels for forwarding.

segment-routing sr-prefer is used to set the preference of segment routing (SR) labels over label distribution protocol (LDP) labels in case both are available towards destination in your network.

prefix-sid index 1 explicit-null — A prefix SID is associated with an IP prefix. The prefix SID is manually configured from the segment routing global block (SRGB) range of labels. The prefix segment steers the traffic along the shortest path to its destination. A node SID is a special type of prefix SID that identifies a specific node. It is configured under the loopback interface with the loopback address of the node as the prefix. The prefix SID is globally unique within the segment routing domain.

Let’s verify it

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show ospf sid-database
SID Database for ospf 1 with ID 192.168.0.1

SID Prefix/Mask
-------- ------------------
1 192.168.0.1/32 (L)
2 192.168.0.2/32
3 192.168.0.3/32
4 192.168.0.4/32
5 192.168.0.5/32
6 192.168.0.6/32
7 192.168.0.7/32
8 192.168.0.8/32


In the same way we have configured the Node-SID as same index as last octet on lo0 interface.

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show ospf database opaque-area 192.168.0.1/32
 OSPF Router with ID (192.168.0.1) (Process ID 1)
Type-10 Opaque Link Area Link States (Area 0)
LS age: 782
 Options: (No TOS-capability, DC)
 LS Type: Opaque Area Link
 Link State ID: 7.0.0.1
 Opaque Type: 7
 Opaque ID: 1
 Advertising Router: 192.168.0.1
 LS Seq Number: 800006fa
 Checksum: 0xed8b
 Length: 44
Extended Prefix TLV: Length: 20
 Route-type: 1
 AF : 0
 Flags : 0x40
 Prefix : 192.168.0.1/32
SID sub-TLV: Length: 8
 Flags : 0x50
 MTID : 0
 Algo : 0
 SID Index : 1
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show mpls forwarding
Local  Outgoing    Prefix             Outgoing     Next Hop        Bytes
Label  Label       or ID              Interface                    Switched

—— ———– —————— ———— ————— ————

16002  Exp-Null-v4 SR Pfx (idx 2)     Hu0/1/0/0    50.50.50.30     0
16003  16003       SR Pfx (idx 3)     Hu0/1/0/0    50.50.50.30     0
16004  Exp-Null-v4 SR Pfx (idx 4)     Fo0/2/0/8    50.50.50.25     0
16005  16005       SR Pfx (idx 5)     Fo0/2/0/8    50.50.50.25     6421133
16006  16006       SR Pfx (idx 6)     Hu0/1/0/0    50.50.50.30     0
       16006       SR Pfx (idx 6)     Fo0/2/0/8    50.50.50.25     0
16007  16007       SR Pfx (idx 7)     Hu0/1/0/0    50.50.50.30     0
16008  Exp-Null-v4 SR Pfx (idx 8)     Fo0/2/0/18   50.50.50.38     0

Now let’s create a Segment routed TE EVPN based P2P L2 Circuit. 🙂

Ideally we know that Controller is needed to play with Segment routed labels and Controller can insert the appropriate labels required for TE however if you don’t have Controller, you can configure the path by explicitly giving the path through which traffic will be going.

So we will start with l2vpn xconnect taking edge interface on NCS5508-1 and assigning a EVPN EVI 1100 with source and target ac-id (attachment circuit id) and associate it with pw-class which we will define in next step.

 

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show running-config l2vpn xconnect group evpn-vpws p2p vpws1
l2vpn
 xconnect group evpn-vpws
 p2p vpws1
 interface HundredGigE0/2/0/2.1100
 neighbor evpn evi 1100 target 11003 source 11001
 pw-class vpws1-class
 !
 !
 !
! 

Pw-class is associated with sr-te policy to steer traffic through the network. An SR-TE policy path is expressed as a list of segments that specifies the path, called a segment ID (SID) list. Each segment is an end-to-end path from the source to the destination, and instructs the routers in the network to follow the specified path instead of the shortest path calculated by the IGP

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show running-config l2vpn pw-class vpws1-class
l2vpn
 pw-class vpws1-class
 encapsulation mpls
 preferred-path sr-te policy vpws1-policy
 !
 !
!
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show running-config segment-routing traffic-eng policy vpws1-policy
segment-routing
 traffic-eng
 policy vpws1-policy
 color 10 end-point ipv4 192.168.0.3
 candidate-paths
 preference 200
 dynamic
 metric
 type te
 !
 !
 !
 preference 300
 explicit segment-list vpws1-path
 !
 !
 !
 !
 !
!

So in our policy, we have defined one preferred path which is dynamic and if that fails it should failover to explicitly configured segment list defined via path vpws1-path.

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show running-config segment-routing traffic-eng segment-list vpws1-path
segment-routing
 traffic-eng
 segment-list vpws1-path
 index 10 address ipv4 50.50.50.38
 index 20 address ipv4 50.50.50.21
 !
 !
!

So if we see currently the route towards NCS5508-3, it’s going via IGP Route and not taking our defined list which is expected.

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show route 192.168.0.3
Wed Jun 27 14:49:59.487 UTC
Routing entry for 192.168.0.3/32
 Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 3, labeled SR, type intra area
 Installed Jun 27 14:47:18.930 for 00:02:40
 Routing Descriptor Blocks
 50.50.50.30, from 192.168.0.3, via HundredGigE0/1/0/0
 Route metric is 3
 No advertising protos.

So let’s see our L2VPN status.

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show l2vpn xconnect group evpn-vpws detail
Group evpn-vpws, XC vpws1, state is up; Interworking none
 AC: HundredGigE0/2/0/2.1100, state is up
 Type VLAN; Num Ranges: 1
 Rewrite Tags: []
 VLAN ranges: [1100, 1100]
 MTU 9016; XC ID 0x1000001; interworking none
 Statistics:
 packets: received 157064234, sent 157063216
 bytes: received 234968088320, sent 234966565392
 drops: illegal VLAN 0, illegal length 0
 EVPN: neighbor 192.168.0.3, PW ID: evi 1100, ac-id 11003, state is up ( established )
 XC ID 0xc0000001
 Encapsulation MPLS
 Source address 192.168.0.1
 Encap type Ethernet, control word disabled
 Sequencing not set
 Preferred path Active : SR TE vpws1-policy, Statically configured, fallback enabled
 Tunnel : Up

 EVPN  Local Remote
 ------------ ------------------------------ -----------------------------
 Label 64007 64006
 MTU   9016  9016
 Control word disabled disabled
 AC ID 11001 11003
 EVPN type Ethernet Ethernet

So if we go n shut the primary dynamic path we can see the forwarding table moves over to our segment-list defined for label 16003 which is for NCS5508-3.

RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#config t
Wed Jun 27 14:58:04.096 UTC
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1(config)#int HundredGigE0/1/0/0
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1(config-if)#shutdown
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1(config-if)#commit
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ncs5508-1#show mpls forwarding
Local Outgoing Prefix Outgoing Next Hop Bytes
Label Label or ID Interface Switched
------ ----------- ------------------ ------------ --------------- ------------
16002 16002 SR Pfx (idx 2) Fo0/2/0/18 50.50.50.38 0
16003 16003 SR Pfx (idx 3) Fo0/2/0/18 50.50.50.38 0

 

So thats all, i hope you like the blog and let me know your feedback.

 

Regards

Mohit

 
Advertisements

Segment Routing v/s RSVP-TE?

SR (Segment Routing) is new and trending topic these days in Telecom Networks. It’s promising and some vendors are pushing for it because of the way we can leverage SDN Controller to steer the traffic through the Network plus how it will remove need of LDP/RSVPE-TE from core however i think there are still some of the use cases where it lacks some capabilities currently. I hope in future all these areas will be fixed and SR becomes THE Option of choice for all Service Providers. These are all my opinions and it would be good to know your views on it.

1)      Bandwidth Reservation issue –> Using SR we can’t reserve the bandwidth in our Network for each LSP as we can do with RSVP-TE. Bandwidth reservation can be critical in some Service provider/Broadcast networks to provide the customer with dedicated bandwidth. We can argue that Controller at the Top can look at the whole Network and would be able to easily manage the reservations however Controller is a single point of failure and I don’t think we can depend upon Controller for this crucial behaviour.?

2)      Lack of Multicast P2MP Support –> Multicast proposes more challenge for the segment routing. SR can only replace Point to point LDP/RSVP-TE however some of the Telecom Networks uses P2MP Multicast services as part of NG-MVPN and for those we still need to depend on RSVP-TE . Moreover MPLS-based multicast solutions have matured now after many years’ of development. I think keeping 2 Technologies i.e one for P2P L2/L3VPN and other for P2MP MVPN will add complexity only to network.

3)      Depth of MPLS Label Stack –> We know that forwarding packets need to push a SR header with a list of segments(labels). Now there are 2 main types of SR Labels. One is Node and other is Adjacency (link). To provide granularity to route the traffic via 15-20 hops we need to push more Adjacency labels at Ingress PE accordingly. This depth of label stack may be a challenge for some type of devices.

Plz see some of the labels stack present in hardware:  (Courtesy: NANOG.org)

Linux (kernel 4.10): 2-3 SID’s

Low end off the shelf (merchant) silicon, e.g. BCM Trident2: 3-5 SID’s

High end off the shelf (merchant) silicon, e.g BCM Jericho1 : 4-7 SID’s

Vendor’ silicon, e.g. Juniper’ Trio: 4-10+ SID’s

Even though Vendor may be able to support 15-20 Label stack, we can end up in payload efficiency and MTU issues i.e. because of big size of the header will reduce the efficiency of payload.

4)      State Issues –> One major advantage for segment routing proposed was that the State is only maintained at the head-end. No state is maintained at mid-points and tail-ends. This is good in case if we have Node and Adjacency/Link labels only however there are proposals for Prefix segment Labels also which will increase the state on all the points in network and I don’t think behaviour will be different from LDP/RSVP-TE then.

In case of centrally controlled environment where Controller will take care of everything it will be difficult for Operations Teams to troubleshoot in case anything goes wrong in Network as they need to know the architecture of each device whether it is capable of getting around the Label stack issue via that device. We may be thinking of putting low end devices near to Customer edge as PEs and high end in middle of core, however due to label stack issue we may need to put high end routers only everywhere.

I am not against SR however i would be really pleased if these issues can be taken care or already available (i may well be living in old times) however from my perspective, there is scalability issue which limits application scenarios for segment routing. It may be better for cases where service provider is mostly providing  unicast L2/L3VPN services.

Let me know your views on this and how you are using SR in your environment 🙂