Advertisement

A Local Approach to Fast Failure Recovery of LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers

  • Damien Saucez
  • Juhoon Kim
  • Luigi Iannone
  • Olivier Bonaventure
  • Clarence Filsfils
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7289)

Abstract

LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) has been proposed as a future Internet architecture in order to solve the scalability issues the current architecture is facing. LISP tunnels packets between border routers, which are the locators of the non-globally routable identifiers associated to end-hosts. In this context, the encapsulating routers, which are called Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITR) and learn dynamically identifier-to-locators mappings needed for the encapsulation, can cause severe and long lasting traffic disruption upon failure. In this paper, thanks to real traffic traces, we first explore the impact of ITR failures on ongoing traffic. Our measurements confirm that the failure of an ITR can have severe impact on traffic. We then propose and evaluate an ITR synchronization mechanism to locally protect ITRs, achieving disruptionless traffic redirection. We finally explore how to minimize the number of ITRs to synchronize in large networks.

Keywords

Locator/ID Separation Next Generation Internet Addressing and Routing Architectures Measurements Emulations 

References

  1. 1.
    BGP Routing Table Analysis Report, http://bgp.potaroo.net
  2. 2.
    Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., Bonaventure, O.: Evaluating the benefits of the locator/identifier separation. In: The 2nd ACM/IEEE Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (MobiArch 2007) (August 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyer, D., Zhang, L., Fall, K.: Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing. RFC 4984, Internet Engineering Task Force (September 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D.: Locator/ID separation protocol (LISP). IETF, Internet Draft draft-ietf-lisp-22.txt (February 2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Working Goup, http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/charter/
  6. 6.
    Kim, J., Iannone, L., Feldmann, A.: A Deep Dive into the LISP Cache and What ISPs Should Know about It. In: Domingo-Pascual, J., Manzoni, P., Palazzo, S., Pont, A., Scoglio, C. (eds.) NETWORKING 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6640, pp. 367–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, H., Chen, M., Zhu, Y.: Evaluating the Performance on ID/Loc Mapping. In: The Global Communications Conference (Globecom 2008) (November 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iannone, L., Bonaventure, O.: On the cost of caching locator/id mappings. In: The 3rd ACM Annual CoNEXT Conference (CoNEXT 2007) (December 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sriram, K., Gleichmann, P., Kim, Y.-T., Montgomery, D.: Enhanced Efficiency of Mapping Distribution Protocols in Scalable Routing and Addressing Architectures (August 2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choi, N., You, T., Park, J., Kwon, T., Choi, Y.: ID/LOC Separation Network Architecture for Mobility Support in Future Internet (February 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Saucez, D., Bonaventure, O.: LISP-TREE: A DNS Hierarchy to Support the LISP Mapping System. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (October 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, D., Lewis, D.: Architectural Implications of Locator/ID Separation. IETF, Internet Draft draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 (January 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuller, V., Farinacci, D.: LISP Map Server. IETF, Internet Draft draft-ietf-lisp-ms-15.txt (January 2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vasseur, J., Demeester, P., Pickavet, M.: Network Recovery: Protection and Restoration of Optical, SONET-SDH, IP, and MPLS, Elsevier, Ed. (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claffy, K., Hyun, Y., Keys, K., Fomenkov, M., Krioukov, D.: Internet mapping: From art to science. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Cybersecurity Applications & Technology Conference for Homeland Security, pp. 205–211. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    University of Oregon, Route views, University of Oregon Route Views project, http://www.routeviews.org/
  17. 17.
    Ohmori, M., Okamura, K., Tanizaki, F.: Analyses on first packet drops of lisp in end-to-end bidirectional communications. In: Internet Conference, Fukuoka, Japan (October 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luciani, J., Armitage, G., Halpern, J., Doraswamy, N.: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP). RFC 2334 (Proposed Standard), Internet Engineering Task Force (April 1998), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2334.txt
  19. 19.
    Saito, Y., Shapiro, M.: Optimistic replication. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 42–81 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Obraczka, K., Dazing, P.: Evaluating the performance of flood-d: A tool for efficiently replicating internet information services. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 16, 369–382 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petersen, K., Spreitzer, M., Terry, D., Theimer, M., Demers, A.: Flexible update propagation for weakly consistent replication. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), pp. 288–301 (October 1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damien Saucez
    • 1
  • Juhoon Kim
    • 2
  • Luigi Iannone
    • 2
  • Olivier Bonaventure
    • 3
  • Clarence Filsfils
    • 4
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.Telekom Innovation LaboratoriesTechnische UniversitätBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Université catholique de LouvainBelgium
  4. 4.Cisco SystemsBelgium

Personalised recommendations