research & development

MSTP-TE Load Balancing:Some results

Benchmarking Carrier Ethernet TechnologiesSession AI.3

Krakow, Poland - April 30, 2008

Rémi Clavier - Orange Labs

COBRA Project

research & development

Goals Goals && Assumptions Assumptions

research & development

France Telecom Group

Input data Work done in collaboration with ALF

Topology Define a common "Reference Topology" Define "variations" from this topology

• To have a more exhaustive analysis• To take into account realistic FT aggregation topologies

Matrix Define a common (more or less) realistic traffic matrix including

• http,HSI, VoIP• Pear to Pear• IPTv• VPNs

Define variation from this Matrix • To try to catch P2P / P2MP influence

Residential NO-1 NO-2 NO-3 NO-4 NO-5 NO-6 NO-11 NO-12 NO-13 NO-14 NO-15 NO-16NO-1 359.1 359.1 359.1 623.7 623.7 276.48NO-2 359.1 623.7 623.7 359.1 359.1 276.48NO-3 359.1 623.7 623.7 359.1 359.1 276.48NO-4 359.1 623.7 623.7 359.1 359.1 276.48NO-5 623.7 359.1 359.1 359.1 623.7 276.48NO-6 623.7 359.1 359.1 359.1 623.7 276.48NO-11 18.5 18.5 18.5NO-12 18.5 18.5 18.5NO-13 18.5 18.5 18.5NO-14 18.5 18.5 18.5NO-15NO-16 1455.9 1455.92 1455.92 1455.92 1455.92 1455.92

iptv NO-1 NO-2 NO-3 NO-4 NO-5 NO-6NO-15 520 520 520 520 520 520

vpn1 NO-1 NO-2 NO-3 NO-4 NO-5 NO-6NO-1 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2NO-2 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2NO-3 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2NO-4 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2NO-5 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2NO-6 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2 137.2

vpn23 NO-1 NO-2 NO-3 NO-4 NO-5 NO-6NO-1 58.6 58.6NO-2 58.6 58.6NO-3 58.6 58.6NO-4 58.6 58.6NO-5 58.6 58.6NO-6 58.6 58.6

research & development

ExperimentsExperiments

research & development

France Telecom Group

Some definitions

For each "variation", different experiments were done

CL/CO CL (as Connection Less)

• The Control Plane is the 802.1Q one (MSTP with 1, 3 or 6 trees)• The Management plane set the MSTP's parameters of the Control Plane

CO (as Connection Oriented)• No Control Plane, the forwarding is positioned by the management plane

LB/SP (for CO only) LB (aka Load Balancing)

• The tool tries to optimize (maximize) the load balancing over the full network SP (aka Shortest Path)

• The tool tries to optimize (minimize) the sum of the hops for all flows over the full network

– A route is "acceptable" only if no link is overloaded over the full Network

MU/UN MU (aka Multicast) UN ( aka Unicast)

research & development

France Telecom Group

Variations of the topology for the experiment V0

Reference Topology, aggregation network fully meshed All links 10 G TV dispatcher directly connected to the aggregation Network

V0b Reference Topology , aggregation network fully meshed All DSLAM links 1G ; All other links (except one) of the Aggregation Network at 10G TV dispatcher directly connected to the aggregation Network

V1 Reference Topology, aggregation network fully meshed All links 10 G TV dispatcher outside the aggregation Network (core network)

V1b Reference Topology , aggregation network fully meshed All DSLAM links 1G ; All other links (except one) of the Aggregation Network at 10G TV dispatcher outside the aggregation Network (core network)

V3 Reference Topology but Aggregation network not meshed (Ring Aggregation topology) All DSLAM links 1G ; All other links (except one) of the Aggregation Network at 10G TV dispatcher outside the aggregation Network (core network)

research & development

Partial resultsPartial results

research & development

France Telecom Group

Results criteria and format Three major indicators chosen jointly with ALF (1 curve, two

values) PFD curve

• Probability Density Function– The probability that the load (in term of capacity of the link) is inside a given

interval– The CDF is the integral of the PDF and not used directly to compare results

The ME value• The average of the PDF function

– May give information about the fact that the less loaded links are preferentially chosen

The SD value• The root mean square of the PDF curve

– shows the dispersion of the load of links around the full network

REm (percent) 15.2716

SD (percent) 8614.98

Density 0 < 10% < 20% < 30% < 40% < 50% < 60% < 70% < 80% < 90% < 100%

CDF 1 19 27 32 35 40 40 40 40 40 40

PDF 1 19 7 5 3 5 0 0 0 0 0

V0-Multicast, PDF/ Nb Root

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

< 10%

< 20%

< 30%

< 40%

< 50%

< 60%

< 70%

< 80%

< 90%

< 100%

1 Root

3 Roots

6 Roots

research & development

France Telecom Group

V0

Analyze (to be discuss) Multicast give a non negligible gain against "multi unicast" For MU, no difference between CO and CL For UN, CO seems better than CL

FT Remarks (from detailed results) 3 trees are enough (no specific gain with 6 trees)

REm - V0 - Abstract Of Results

14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

UNICO UNICL MULTICO MULTICL

SD - V0 - Abstract Of Results

7600

7800

8000

8200

8400

8600

8800

9000

UNICO UNICL MULTICO MULTICL

Fully Meshed Aggregation networkFully Meshed Aggregation networkAll Links 10GAll Links 10GTV inside aggregation NetworkTV inside aggregation Network

research & development

France Telecom Group

V1b

Analyze No "big" difference between CO and CL LB give a better REm and a well better

SD than SP in a CO context PDF curve shows that CO/SP doesn't

find a correct load balancing

Fully Meshed Aggregation networkFully Meshed Aggregation networkAll Links (except one) 10G for the aggregation Networks, All Links (except one) 10G for the aggregation Networks, DSLAM links 1GDSLAM links 1GTV dispatcher outside aggregation NetworkTV dispatcher outside aggregation Network

REm - V1b - Abstract Of Results

16

16.5

1717.5

18

18.5

19

19.520

20.5

21

UNICO UNICL MULTICO MULTICL

0

< 1

0%

< 2

0%

< 3

0%

< 4

0%

< 5

0%

< 6

0%

< 7

0%

< 8

0%

< 9

0%

< 1

00%

> 1

00%

V0COUNISP

V0COMUSP0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

PDF for MU & UNI

V0COUNISP

V0COUNILB

V0COMUSP

V0COMULB

0

5

10

15

20

25

V0COUNISP V0COUNILB V0COMUSP V0COMULB

REm CO Uni/MU

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

V0COUNISP V0COUNILB V0COMUSP V0COMULB

SD CO Uni/MU

research & development

  Let us try to conclude …Let us try to conclude … ... keeping the door open for discussion... keeping the door open for discussion

research & development

France Telecom Group

Preliminary conclusions

With MSTP, paths are constrained to follow "trees" At first sight, this constraint could decrease load balancing performances

compared to ELS networks But, with a TE tool, MSTP gives the same results as CO networks in terms of

load balancing

For a very loaded network and/or a network with links with different capacities of links

A centralized optimization gives better results (load balancing) than optimization based solely on the calculation of a Shortest Path

The centralized optimization tool gives equivalent performances for CL or CO networks with LB routing ("TE") algorithm

Other "well known" properties of MSTP are not impacted by load balancing optimization

Low cost "Bad" convergence time Compliant to standard Natively multicast…

research & development

France Telecom Group