INTERNET-DRAFT                                               Roger Lapuh
Intended Status: Informational                            Paul Unbehagen
Expires: <September 3, 2012>                                       Avaya
                                                     Peter Ashwood-Smith
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           March 5, 2012


                     SPB Deployment Considerations
                     draft-lapuh-spb-deployment-00


Abstract

   Based on life deployments and three interoperability events, this
   document provides advice to network operators about best practices
   when implementing IEEE 802.1aq Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) networks.
   It is principally addressed to system integrators and solution
   providers, including those that do not yet support SPB.  Some advice
   to implementers is also included.  The intention of the advice is to
   facilitate multi vendor network deployments as well as provide
   guidance for new installations.




Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html





Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2  MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  General Deployment Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  INFRASTRUCTURE CONFIGURATION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1  IS-IS SYSTEM ID  AND SPB NICKNAME CONFIGURATION
          RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2  SPB FABRIC INTERFACE TYPES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3  SPB FABRIC ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4  SPB Fabric configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.5  SPB SERVICES MAPPING  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.6  SPB AND IP ROUTING  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  STANDARD IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  OA&M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Tenant Separation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7  Deployment Experiences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.1  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.2  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.3  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.4  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11






Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


1  Introduction

   This document provides a set of recommendations and reference points
   for the deployment of IEEE 802.1aq based Shortest Path Bridging (SPB)
   networks based on MAC in MAC encapsulation. It focuses on the key
   network design items and does not go into describing the protocol
   details.


   The IEEE 802.1aq standard has been technically frozen since early
   2011 before several multi vendor interoperability events had taken
   place, thus the recommendations described here are valid despite the
   minor editorial work that has caused non technical change in the IEEE
   base standard since.

1.1  Terminology

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


1.2  MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND


   This document provides a checklist of recommendations which are based
   on multiple documented multi vendor Interoperability tests [SPBWIKI]
   and more than 12 months of production deployment experiences. It
   summarizes the learning's and experience acquired during those
   activities. New SPB installations can benefit from following the
   recommendations below.

2.  General Deployment Recommendations

   All the following described deployments have shown sub second
   convergence times in case of link or nodal failures within the SPB
   fabric.

   Recommendation 1:

   To  achieve this, strictly connection oriented point-to-point
   interfaces are used, and shared segments between fabric nodes have
   been avoided. Ethernet based mechanisms are used to detect link
   faults quickly and to trigger a shortest path calculations in case of
   a link and nodal failure.


   The end-point-only provisioning for network virtualization with SPB



Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


   has proven very effective in many of the installations described
   below.

   Recommendation 2:

   SPB's service ID (I-SID) with its (24 bit) addressing space has
   helped to keep the VLAN spaces (1 to 4095) local to the respective
   data centers, avoiding the complexity of managing a global VLAN space
   out of a range of only 4096. It is recommended to define a global
   virtualization schema based on I-SIDs, and not tie VLAN ids directly
   to ISIDs ids in a 1 to 1 relationship throughout the network.

   Recommendation 3:

   It has been seen that using SPB to keep Spanning Tree regions (and
   therefore any impacts in case of network changes) local to access
   networks, has significantly improved the end user experience.

   Besides the need for L2 traffic virtualization for hypervisor
   migrations, all the deployments also were required to route the
   virtualized traffic between IP subnets/broadcast domains which are
   provided with an SPB service.

   Recommendation 4:

   Routing between services can be done with dedicated routers external
   to the SPB fabric, but it would be an advantage if SPB nodes could
   route traffic between services similar to traditional routing
   switches that are able to perform routing between VLANs/IP subnets
   without having to leave the Ethernet fabric.


3.  INFRASTRUCTURE CONFIGURATION RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1  IS-IS SYSTEM ID  AND SPB NICKNAME CONFIGURATION RECOMMENDATIONS

   As of this writing the IEEE SPB standard defines a single ISIS area
   for an SPB region. Even though large SPB regions can be defined and
   operated, in the future this will likely be extended to multi-area
   support.

   Recommendation 5:

   The interoperability events have shown it is a good practice to
   manually configure System IDs and SPB Nicknames with a simple
   identification scheme, coordinating the system ID numerically with
   the SPB Nickname for ease of troubleshooting. It is also a good
   practice to define an area per SPB region. We recommend using the



Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


   upper 24 bits to indicate the area ID.  For example, System IDs start
   with 4900.bb00.1000 for the first node, 4900.bb00.2000 for the second
   node and so on.  In these System IDs, 49 is indicating a private
   address, the "00bb" indicates area "00bb", and 1000, 2000, etc.,
   indicate the node number (1 through n).  These System IDs correspond
   to SPB Nicknames of 1.bb.10, 1.bb,20, 1.bb.30 for nodes 1, 2 and 3
   respectively, and so on. Using manually configured BMAC addresses and
   also coordinating the BMAC with the System ID and SPB Nickname
   enhances-, ease of identification for management and troubleshooting
   as well as making possible future PBB-EVPN.

   As an additional option, with the goal to reduce configuration tasks,
   System-IDs could be automatically inherited from the systems chassis
   MAC addresses. Also the SPB Nickname could be derived from the lower
   bits of the chassis MAC. This approach could be targeted for SPB
   access switches where a simplified deployment model would be of most
   interest.

3.2  SPB FABRIC INTERFACE TYPES

   Details on Recommendation 1:

   SPB Fabric inter connections in the preceding SPB deployments are all
   based on point-to-point Ethernet links, optical CWDM/DWDM connection
   or some sort of transparent E-LINE service. By avoiding connecting
   SPB over a shared segment (or E-LAN) failure detection and network
   convergence times have been kept very low. Failure detection and
   recovery is thus not dependent on IS-IS hello-multiplier intervals
   but triggered by lower layer protocols.

   Such E-LINE services (to interconnect SPB nodes) can be based on any
   type of transparent Ethernet service (MPLS- or PBB based), as long as
   they are loop free and the service Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
   size is allowing for a minimum of [MTU] 1544 bytes.

   Tagged IP: = 1522 = 1500(IP MTU)+ 2(Ethertype)+ 12(MAC SA/DA) +
   4(TAG) + 4 (CRC) and MacInMac Header = 22 bytes.



   On dark-fiber based Ethernet connections, link failures can be
   detected by the Ethernet remote fault detection mechanisms; however,
   on service provider based links, there are multiple active components
   between two SPB nodes, and thus not all failures can be detected
   easily. To ensure quick failover times across an E-LINE service, an
   end-to-end connectivity check mechanism such as 802.1ag based
   Connectivity Check Mechanism (CCM), or similar, is recommended.




Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


3.3  SPB FABRIC ACCESS

   Details on Recommendation 3:

   Many networks today still operate with some sort of Spanning Tree
   (MSTP/RSTP or proprietary versions). SPB can be leveraged to separate
   Spanning Tree regions into smaller independent domains. Thus a
   Spanning Tree root bridge change impacts smaller regions only and is
   not spread across the whole network. Keeping root bridge elections
   and the effect of Topology Change Notifications local has proven a
   significant improvement of network availability in larger Spanning
   Tree deployments.


3.4  SPB Fabric configuration

   Recommendation 6:

   In an SPB network the Backbone VLAN IDs (BVIDs) are used to separate
   and load-spread SPB traffic across multiple paths. The 802.1aq
   standard defines up to 16 BVIDs. Those BVIDs need to be consistently
   configured across the SPB region. Those BVIDs can be selected out of
   the available VLAN range [1-4095]. Using a pre-defined set of VLANs
   is recommended.

   Usually the lowest 4000 IDs are used by customers for network access
   VLAN configurations; thus it has been seen as a good practice to use
   BVLAN numbering that is in the highest upper addressable range, e.g,
   start  from 4050 for the primary BVLAN and all switches and 4051 to
   4065 for the subsequent ones. It is recommended to use at least two
   BVIDs for load-spreading reasons.

3.5  SPB SERVICES MAPPING

   Details on Recommendation 2:

   When network virtualization needs to be extended between regions, for
   example for Virtual Machine movements, it is very important to use a
   unique virtualization index to achieve this. SPB, with its 802.1ah
   based I-SID provides an inherent virtualization technique which
   allows localizing the VLAN significance and using the service ID (I-
   SID) as a global virtualization index. Especially in VMWare
   deployments where the Portgroup IDs of VCenter instances need to
   correspond with the VM VLAN memberships this is an advantage. With
   SPB, it is thus easily possible to run a hosted environment with
   multiple VCenter instances in parallel on the same infrastructure
   without having any VLAN space interference. In the preceding virtual
   Data Center deployment where multiple domains are interconnected, the



Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


   VLAN spaces can be kept independent of each other, and the
   virtualization is achieved by the usage of the I-SIDs.

3.6  SPB AND IP ROUTING

   Details on Recommendation 4:

   In an SPB network the typical size of the user and server subnets are
   not being changed from what one is used to with traditional
   technologies. This means that there is always a need for routing
   functionality. The best case is if a SPB node can directly route
   individual IP subnets which consist of I-SIDs, similar to how those
   nodes can route VLAN based IP subnets. Optimally this routing should
   be available within the SPB Ethernet fabric between I-SID based
   services.



4.  STANDARD IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

   Recommendation 7:

   In an SPB network, failure propagation is achieved by SPB nodes re-
   laying topology change notifications through IS-IS on a hop by hop
   basis in the control plane. With an assumption of 10ms relay latency
   per node, a ring of 20 SPB nodes could see up to 100ms of propagation
   latency to reach all nodes in the ring. As an optimization of SPB,
   the default L2 service instance described in IEEE 802.1aq could be
   used to flood all propagation changes into this default service,
   reducing the propagation delay in this example from 100ms to 10ms by
   leveraging fast path forwarding. The SPB IEEE standard could be
   enhanced to also include this default-flooding behavior.


5.  OA&M

   In all deployment experiences, the use of  L2 based OAM capabilities
   have been invaluable in managing the network.

   Recommendation 8:

   It is recommended that IEEE 802.1ag based connectivity check
   mechanisms: Layer 2 Ping, Layer 2 Traceroute and Layer 2 Tracetree
   are being implemented.


6.  Tenant Separation Considerations




Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


   SPB separates any type of traffic at the edge access of the SPB
   region into its own service instance (I-SID). Classification into the
   I-SID can be done based on port, vlan or a combination of port/vlan.
   Once a customer-or application traffic is classified into an I-SID,
   it is kept separate until it exits the SPB region, very similar to
   MPLS with its tunnel and service labels. In SPB the "tunnel label" is
   comprised of the BMAC pair and the "service label" is the I-SID. Thus
   SPB is as secure as any other packet switched solution. Today there
   are many service provider based networks in production using the same
   802.1ah (PBB) encapsulation methods as SPB is using.


7  Deployment Experiences

7.1  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO A

   SPB AS INTER-DATACENTER-FABRIC FOR DC REDUNDANCY OR DC MIGRATIONS

   Typically in a large enterprise core, it is not viewed as good
   practice to extend L2 broadcast domains across the backbone network.
   However, with the advent of server virtualization, it has become a
   common requirement to extend server VLAN segments between geo-
   redundant Data Centers to dynamically, efficiently and cost
   effectively leverage the ability to perform Virtual Machine
   migrations and run load balancing techniques across multiple Data
   Centers.

   With the deployment of SPB in a data center interconnect, the
   following challenges have been addressed: In many cases SPB can be
   deployed on the existing network architecture with IS-IS running side
   by side and independently from other routing protocols such as OSPF.
   OSPF is being used to populate the IP routing table and provide L3
   routed connectivity. IS-IS is being used for SPB, bringing the
   ability to extend server VLANs across the backbone. Typically the
   server VLANs to be extended across the network are locally configured
   within the Data Centers, on the server aggregation Top of Rack
   switch(es) as well as on the distribution layer nodes for the Data
   Center which aggregate the Top of Rack switches. On the distribution
   nodes, the server VLANs are assigned to a service ID (I-SID) and thus
   extended across the SPB network. Access redundancy is provided with
   an active-active model which ties the SPB core region to the VLAN
   based access region. The same distribution nodes can act as a routing
   gateway for the server VLANs. VRRP is also being used to create a
   single default gateway IP address for the server VMs. The VRRP
   instance per Server IP-subnet thus exists on all distribution nodes
   and provides redundant and distributed default gateway functionality.
   Core failure recovery times in the SPB region can be kept well below
   1 second and L3 recovery times, depending on the configured VRRP



Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


   timers.



7.2  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO B

   SPB TO RE-ARCHITECT SECURITY ZONES

   There are other valid reasons why it might be necessary to extend L2
   segments across the enterprise core. A good example is a major
   manufacturing plant which has a very rigorous design based on a pure
   IP routed architecture with a strong focus on firewalling different
   parts of the network. This is achieved by physically wedging
   firewalls within the physical topology in such a way as to deny any
   unwanted interaction between different network zones. The security
   provided by this model has to be offset by the rigidity it imposes in
   terms of where devices are allowed to be connected to the network. In
   this particular example, connecting devices in locations where they
   were not initially intended to be located was addressed by laying
   additional cabling, with the costs and delays that this involves.
   Once deployed, SPB brought to this model the ability to decouple the
   physical infrastructure from the logical connectivity running above
   it. This means that it is no longer necessary to wedge firewalls into
   the physical topology to intercept traffic, but rather let SPB force
   L2 VLANs to reach the desired firewalls, wherever those firewalls
   might be located on the network. It is now possible to connect
   devices anywhere on the physical network infrastructure and simply
   connect these devices to the VLAN segment to which they need to
   belong.


7.3  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO C

   SPB FOR CAMPUS VIRTUALIZATION

   Another example of where it is useful to extend L2 segments can be
   found in the health care vertical. An operational challenge, typical
   of most hospitals, is to be able to support network connectivity for
   mobile medical equipment which typically needs to connect to a server
   application hosted in the Data Center. The real challenge with this
   equipment is often the fact that it is supplied and maintained by
   separate, often external, technicians with little or no IP skills. As
   such this equipment is usually not able, or not configured, to use
   DHCP and instead uses a single flat IP subnet which encompasses the
   mobile units as well as the server application in the Data Center.
   The hospital's network team essentially has limited control over the
   IP configuration of these devices and hence a desire to segregate
   such applications within a constrained L2 service. By deploying SPB



Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012                [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


   L2 instances, it is now possible to much more easily manage such
   applications.


7.4  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIO D

   SPB AS MULTI-TENANT FABRIC SOLUTION

   In a multitenant deployment SPB was leveraged to provide secured and
   separated services for several tenants. In this implementation SPB
   leverages 10 Gigabit Ethernet heavily. In the two geo-disbursed data
   centers LAN and IP connectivity is utilized in a way that makes both
   appear as one virtual data center. A common 3-tier design is utilized
   for the entire network. There may be multiple tenants per edge which
   are then segregated into their own private broadcast domain.

   Over 500 L2 services are spread across the network providing IP
   subnet connectivity to any of the tenants. At the data center those
   IP subnets are assigned to over a dozen of Virtual Router Forwarding
   (VRF)instances corresponding to their security requirements. VRRP is
   used to provide router redundancy.

   Layer 3 routing between VRF instances, hence between tenants, to
   external organizations and to the Internet is performed by stateful
   firewalls.

   This simplified model utilizing Layer 2 I-SIDs, including routing
   between service instances, across a common SPB backbone allows this
   solution provider to quickly and effectively extend either Layer 2
   services or Layer 3 services to any location in the network for any
   application.


   For Voice over IP a Quality of Service (QoS) framework for traffic
   prioritization has been employed. IP Differentiated Services
   (DiffServ) EF DSCP and several specific AF DSCP groups are mapped
   into the appropriate 802.1p priority classes at the SPB BEB nodes to
   provide the necessary traffic prioritization within the SPB backbone.




8  Security Considerations

   Security implications of SPB deployments are to be discussed in
   separate documents.





Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


9  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests to IANA


5  References

5.1  Normative References


5.2  Informative References


   [RFC6329] Fedyk, D., "IS-IS Extensions Supporting IEEE 802.1aq
   Shortest Path Bridging" July 2011

   [SPBWIKI] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_Path_Bridging

Authors' Addresses


   Roger Lapuh (editor)
   Avaya
   Wallisellen, 8304
   Switzerland
   EMail: rogerlapuh@avaya.com



   Paul Unbehagen
   Avaya
   1300 W. 120th Avenue
   Westminster, CO 80234 USA
   Email: unbehagen@avaya.com


   Steven Emert
   Avaya
   225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4350
   Minneapolis, Minnesota  55402-4619
   US
   Email:  semert@avaya.com


   Ludovico Stevens (editor)
   Avaya
   25 Allee Pierre Ziller
   06560 Valbonne



Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 11]


INTERNET DRAFT       SPB Deployment Recommendations            March 5th


   France
   EMail: ludovicostev@avaya.com



   Peter Ashwood-Smith (editor)
   Huawei Technologies Canada Ltd.
   303 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 400
   Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3J1
   CANADA
   EMail: Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com


   Srikanth Keesara
   Avaya
   600 Technology Park
   Billerica MA 01821
   US
   EMmail: skeesara@avaya.com
































Lapuh, R.              Expires September 3, 2012               [Page 12]