ISSN (Online): 2349-7084

International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends (IJCERT)

Volume 1, Issue 2, August 2014, PP 96-103
www.ijcert.org

IP Fast Rerouting framework with Backup Topology

Laddagiri Kiranmai1, M.Tech Research Scholar,
K.Lakshmi2, Assistant Professor,
Dr.S.Prem Kumar3, Head of the Department

Department of CSE, G.Pullaiah College of Engineering and Technology, Kurnool

JNTU Anatapur, Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract: This paper portrays the distinctive IP quick rerouting plans utilizing reinforcement
topology. This paper portrays the plan which goes under complete IPFRR casing function as per
IETF (Internet engineering task force).the first segment gives the fundamental thought regarding
the IPFRR utilized for the rerouting reason. The second area bargains about the diverse
strategies utilized under IPFRR with ideas and illustrations. The third area depicts the essential
three design situation for IPFRR. The fourth area gives the conclusion on the premise of the
relative hypothetical studies made in the above segments and tries to discover the best for
rerouting. The conclusion proposes that any of the single plan is not fit for expert voiding full
scope, thus it demonstrates that to acquire a full scope of 100% these plans must be utilized as a
part of a blend with alternate plans.

Index Terms: IP Fast Reroute, Equal Cost Multiple Path, Congestion Avoidance, Special Node, And Backup
Topology.

IJCERT 96 | P a g e
1. INTRODUCTION of such schemes is that the ability to sup-press

General connectionless networks contain no information science re-convergence underneath

mechanisms to determine disjoint finish to-end transient failures, and hence stops instability and

methods as delineate for connection-oriented doubtless cut back the quantity of micro-loops.

networks. Recovery schemes in Connectionless Micro-loops might also occur throughout a transition

networks presently area unit information science re- from backup routing to original routing once the

convergence and information science quick reroute. transient failure is repaired, but the frequency is also

The reason for the long time-scale of IP re- reduced.

convergence is that the proven fact that it's a reactive

and international process. to get quick reroute a
theme should be proactive and native, which implies
that backup routing data should be put in earlier
which the rerouting is performed regionally with
none failure notifications. Information science FRR
provides quick reroute capabilities victimization pure
Fig 1.LFA problem
IP (non-MPLS) protocols, like OSPF and IS-IS.
IPFRR will be enabled on one or additional routers, When victimization IPFRR, solely routers adjacent to
once that it calculates one LFA backup path for each the unsuccessful link or node understand something
prefix. If there's a failure and a router cannot forward concerning the failure the least bit. Alternative
packets on the desired outgoing interface, it will routers use their traditional routes for packet
switch quickly, before reconvergence to associate forwarding, which can cause issues if a router passes
LFA interface. The IPFRR enabled interface ensures a packet back from wherever it's received it, basic
that the packets rejoin the initial route downstream cognitive process that there's a usable path leading
from the failure. If the rerouting rejoins the initial thitherto. Therefore, IPFRR techniques should make
route at the remote node of the protected interface, sure that no forwarding loops are shaped supported
the LFA provides circuit protection. If it rejoins more such misbelieves. Succeeding sections during this
downstream than the remote node, then the LFA paper describe the various algorithms used below
provides node failure protection. The LFAs on the IPFRR.
interfaces, similarly because the routes over those
interfaces, area unit supported the configuration. The 2. IPFRR METHODS
topology might end in LFAs being accessible to
2.1 Equal Cost Multiple Path (ECMP) one amongst
safeguard all routes over some interfaces, to
the oldest and simplest informatics quick Reroute
safeguard just some routes, or to safeguard none in
techniques is Equal price Multiple Path (ECMP) [7],
the least. With quick rerouting, packets will be
that is Associate in Nursing extension enabled within
rerouted to different routes in an exceedingly time-
the majority of todays networks. ECMP is usable in
scale that will assistance on the performance of
those cases once over one (different) shortest
period of time applications. Another key contribution
methods area unit accessible towards a destination.

IJCERT 97 | P a g e
 IP Fast Rerouting framework with Backup Topology
The traffic is distributed equally among the methods
by default, providing enlarged information measure.
To boot, once a failure happens on one path, routers
balance traffic among the remaining routes. ECMP is
simple to implement, however it works only multiple
methods of equal price area unit accessible between
the supply and destination. ECMP is simple to
implement, however it works only multiple methods
of equal price area unit accessible between the supply
and destination
Fig 2: Equal Cost Multiple Path [2]
In Fig. 2, node S has 3 ECMP methods to node D: via
R1, R2 and R3. Suppose that link S R2 on the first
path is down. During this case, node S continues to
use its 2 secondary methods once forwarding packets
to node D. However, node R2 has just one shortest
path to node D; therefore ECMP wouldn't be able to
handle the failure of link R2 R5.
2.2 Loop-free Alternates (LFA) The principles of
Loop-free Alternates (LFA [8]) are the same as that
of ECMP, however LFA covers additional cases. The
first path is usually the shortest one, and every one
different method on that the next-hop is nearer to the
destination than the sender square measure potential
IJCERT
secondary methods. Theres no international sign,
failures don't seem to be publicized throughout the
total network, however loops still cannot seem, since
every router forwards packets to its neighbors in
order that the gap to the destination decreases in each
step. A Loop-Free Alternate path [5] exists once an
instantaneous neighbor of the router adjacent to the
failure contains a path to the destination that may be
bonded to not traverse the failure (loop-free neighbor
condition). The common coverage on common
networks (that is powerfully keen about the topology)
shows variations from sixty to ninetieth. Indeed, once
a link or a node fails, solely the neighbors of the
failure square measure initio aware that the failure
has occurred and solely neighboring node to the
failure repair the failure. These repairing routers have
to be compelled to steer datagrams to their
destinations despite the actual fact that the majority
different routers within the network square measure
unaware of the character and therefore the location of
the failure. a typical limitation in most of the bottom
LFA mechanism is associate degree inability to point
the identity of the failure and to expressly steer the
repaired datagram around the failure. Consequently,
the extent to that this limitation affects the repair
coverage is topology dependent. a sophisticated LFA
answer [6] consists in sequencing the FIB updates
either spatially (topologically ordered FIB update
from far-end to the near-end neighbor contiguous to
the failure) or temporally (timely synchronized FIB
updates). for example, ordered FIB update provides
100 percent loop-free convergence at the expense of
a FIB update time proportional to R x MAX_FIB,
where, R is that the GHB (hop) length among
methods to edge r accustomed reach destination t
(downstream SPF neighbor before the failure) and
MAX_FIB may be a net-work-wide constant that
98 | P a g e
Laddagiri Kiranmai,K.Lakshmi, Dr.S. Prem Kumar

reflects the most time Tax needed to update a FIB alternates and a additional restrictive condition for
regardless of the amendment needed. Hence, Node-protecting alternates. 1. Link-protecting
degrades proportionately to the trail length i.e. FIB alternates to ensure loop-free alternates for link
updates are literally committed at the near-end once failures, the subsequent condition should hold: price
reception of a completion message traveling back (N,D)< cost(N, S) + cost(S,D) (1) Figure a pair of.6
from the supply of GHB (hop) length among path to shows a failure state of affairs wherever this
edge r accustomed reach destination t. This answer condition holds. During this state of affairs, node N
isn't thought of outside network maintenance wouldn't route the packets back to the failure. 2.
operation because it suffers from slow activation. Node-protecting alternates alternate next-hops for
node failures need a stronger condition than what's
the case for link failures. If node E unsuccessful in
figure four node N would select node E as next hop
towards destination D, and therefore node N can-not
be used as a backup next hop to guard the failure of
node E. to ensure loop-free alternates for node
failures, the subsequent condition should hold:
cost(N,D)< cost(N,E) + cost(E,D) (2) Figure five
Fig.3 Loop-free Alternates offers associate degree example of a failure state of
affairs wherever the condition holds for a failure of
As shown in Fig. 3, the next-hop from S towards D
node E
on the shortest path is R2. Once link S R2 is
down, the second shortest path from S is via R1.
However, R1 doesn't recognize something regarding
the failure, and its shortest path to D is thru S;
therefore, it can't be used as a backup next-hop
because it would pass packets back to S. Instead, S
forwards packets towards R3 so as to avoid the loop.
just in case the burden of link S R3 was one, LFA .
wouldn't be able to realize associate degree alternate
Fig 4: Illustrates a failure scenario where the
path to D. These square measure various methods
condition for Link-protecting alternates is fulfilled.
that square measure longer than the first path,
however still give loop-free routing to the
destination. Such a path exists once an instantaneous
neighbor (N) of the police work node (S) contains a
path to the destination which might be sure to not
traverse the failure, i.e. the unsuccessful link or node
isn't enclosed within the various paths. Science quick
Reroute specifies a condition for Link-protecting

International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends (IJCERT ) 99 | P a g e

 IP Fast Rerouting framework with Backup Topology

Fig 5: Illustrates a failure scenario where the ways a specific repair path could also be valid for all
condition for Node-protecting alternates is fulfilled. destinations that need repair or could solely be valid
for a set of destinations. If a repair path is valid for a
2.3 Multi-hop repair paths When there's no possible
node like a shot downstream of the failure, then it'll
loop-free alternate path it should still be potential to
be valid for all destinations antecedently accessible
find a router, that is over one hop far from the router
by traversing the failure. However, in cases wherever
adjacent to the failure, from that traffic are going to
such a repair path is troublesome to realize as a result
be forwarded to the destination while not traversing
of it re-quires a high order multi-hop repair path, it
the failure.ECMP and loop-free alternate ways (as
should still be potential to spot lower-order repair
represented in [RFC5286]) provide the only repair
ways (possibly even loop-free alternate paths) that
ways and would commonly be used once they are
permit the bulk of destinations to be repaired. Once
accessible. it's anticipated that around eightieth of
IPFRR is unable to produce complete repair, it's
failures (see Section five.2.2) is repaired
fascinating that the extent of the repair coverage is
mistreatment these basic strategies alone.Multi-hop
determined and according via network management.
repair ways are a lot of complicated, each within the
Theres a trade-off between minimizing the amount
computations needed to work out their existence, and
of repair ways to be computed, and minimizing the
within the mechanisms needed to invoke them. They
overheads incurred in mistreatment higher-order
will be more classified as: one. Mechanisms
multi-hop repair ways for destinations that they're not
wherever one or a lot of alternate FIBs are pre-
strictly necessary. However, the process price of
computed altogether routers, and also the repaired
deter-mining repair ways on a private destination
packet is taught to be forwarded employing a "repair
basis is terribly high. it'll of times be the case that the
FIB" by some methodology of per-packet
bulk of destinations could also be repaired
communication like police work a "U-turn"
mistreatment solely the "basic" repair mechanism,
[UTURN], [FIFR] or by marking the packet
deed a smaller set of the destinations to be repaired
[SIMULA]. 2. Mechanisms functionally cherish a
mistreatment one in every of the a lot of complicated
loose supply route that's invoked mistreatment the
multi-hop strategies. Such a hybrid approach could
traditional FIB. These embody tunnels [TUNNELS],
go a way to breakdown the conflict between
different shortest ways [ALT-SP], and label-based
completeness and quality. The utilization of repair
mechanisms. 3. Mechanisms using special addresses
ways could lead to excessive traffic passing over a
or labels that ar put in within the FIBs of all routers
link, leading to congestion discard. This reduces the
with routes pre-computed to avoid sure elements of
effectiveness of IPFRR. Mechanisms to influence the
the network. as an example, see [NOTVIA]. In
distribution of repaired traffic to reduce this impact ar
several cases, a repair path that reaches 2 hops far
thus fascinating. Tunneling the repair methods
from the router police work the failure can fulfill, and
represented during this draft operate the premise that
it's anticipated that around ninety eight of failures is
if a packet will somehow be sent to the opposite
repaired by this methodology. However, to produce
aspect of the failure, it'll afterwards proceed towards
complete repair coverage, some use of longer multi-
hop repair ways is mostly necessary. Scope of Repair

IJCERT 100 |
Page
Laddagiri Kiranmai,K.Lakshmi, Dr.S. Prem Kumar
its destination precisely as if it had traversed the
unsuccessful element. See Figure 5.
Fig 6: Simple Link Repair.
Creating a repair path from S to E might need a
packet to traverse Associate in tending unnatural
route. If an appropriate natural path starts at a
neighbor (i.e. it's a loop-free alternate), then S will
force the packet directly there. If this can be not the
case, then S might produce one by employing a
tunnel to hold the packet to a degree within the
network wherever there's a true loop-free alternate.
Note that the tunnel doesn't need to go from S to E.
The tunnel will terminate at any router within the
network, given that S is positive that the packet can
proceed properly to its destination from that router.
Tunnel needs: There are unit varieties of science in
science tunnel mechanisms which will be wont to
fulfill the necessities of this style. Appropriate
candidates embody IP-in-IP [RFC1853], GRE
[RFC1701]] and L2TPv3 [RFC3931]. the choice of
the particular tunneling mechanism (and any
necessary enhancements) wont to give a repair path is
outside the scope of this document. But the
subsequent sections describe the necessities for the
tunneling mechanism. Not-via Repairs this section
provides a short summary of the not-via technique of
IPFRR.
International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends (IJCERT )
Fig 7: Tunnel to not-via address [8].
Assume that S incorporates a packet for a few
destination D that it might usually send via P and B,
which S suspects that P has failing. S encapsulates
the packet to Bp. the trail from S to Bp is that the
shortest path from S to B not going via P. If the net-
work contains a path from S to B that doesn't transit
router P, i.e. the network isn't divided by the failure
of P, then the packet are with success delivered to B.
once the packet self-addressed to Bp arrives at B, B
removes the encapsulation and forwards the repaired
packet towards its final destination. Note that if the
trail from B to the ultimate destination includes one
or a lot of nodes that area unit enclosed within the
repair path, a packet might back track once the
encapsulation is removed. However, as a result of the
decapsulating router is often nearer to the packet
destination than the encapsulating router, the packet
won't loop. For complete protection, all of P's
neighbors would force a not-via address that enables
traffic to be directed to them while not traversing P.
3. SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE QUICK
REROUTE CONFIGURATION WAYS
We envision three completely different configuration
situations of scientific discipline quick Reroute. Link
failures area unit the foremost common failure, and
thus a technique for less than providing link failure
coverage could also be another (1). If but there's a
101 | P a g e
 IP Fast Rerouting framework with Backup Topology
demand for handling node failures additionally,
configuring for covering node failures is another (2).
Such another also will cowl link failures. In each
strategy one and a couple of we tend to permit the
utilization of multi-hop repair methods to get full
coverage. Configuration strategy three represents a
state of affairs wherever the routers or the operator
doesn't support the utilization of multi-hop repair
methods, e.g. as a result of the complexness. Then,
solely ECMP and alternative loop free alternates area
unit allowed. 1. Covering link failures during this
case, we tend to tack scientific discipline quick
Reroute in step with the condition for link protective
alternates. Once no loop-free link protective
alternates exist, we tend to tack u-turns, multi-hop
tunneling or tunneling victimization not-via
addresses, severally. 2. Covering node failures during
this case, we tend to tack scientific discipline quick
Reroute in step with the condition for node protective
alternates. Once no loop-free node protective
alternates exist, we tend to tack u-turns, multi-hop
tunneling or tunneling victimization not-via
addresses, severally. Link failures also will be coated
with this configuration strategy. 3. Loop-free
alternates solely during this case, we tend to tack
scientific discipline quick Reroute in step with the
condition for node protective alternates. If the
condition for node protection alternates isn't glad for
a given destination, we tend to attempt to tack in step
with the less restrictive condition for link protective
alternates. This strategy can use no multi-hop repair
methods, and thus some failure situations might not
be coated.
4. CONCLUSIONS
In theory, not-via is that exclusively IETF scientific
discipline quick reroute theme that may acquire full
IJCERT
Page
recovery from any single link or node failure. Full
coverage can't be obtained by victimization loop free
alternates solely. Another to get full coverage is to in
turn attempt to tack ECMP, alternative loop-free
alternates, U-turns, general tunnels and Not-via
tunnels (configuration strategy one and 2). From a
management purpose of read these various provides a
mixture of comparatively advanced mechanisms to
implement and tack. From these findings, conclusion
is created that a network that's imagined to support
quick reroute ought to support a way that guarantees
full failure recovery from each single link and node
failures. A possible configuration would be to use
ECMP and loop-free alternates since these are a unit
quite easy to tack and manage, and so use a full
coverage methodology like Not-via to satisfy the
guarantees of 100 percent recovery from single
failures.
REFERENCES
[1] AudunFosselie Hansen Fast Reroute in IP
Networks, Doctoral Dissertation at the University of
Oslo, May 2007.
[2]PeterSzilagyi,ZoltanToth,Design,Implementation
and Evaluation of an IP Fast ReRoute Prototype,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics,
Dept. of Telecommunications and Media Informatics,
2008.
[3] Simon Tembo, Ken-ichiYukimatsu, Ryota
Takahashi, ShoeiKamamura, Takashi Miyamura,
KoheiShiomoto, A New Backup Topology Design
Method for Congestion Avoidance in IP Fast
Reroute, International Journal of Net-works and
Communications 2012, 2(5): 123-131.
102 |
Laddagiri Kiranmai,K.Lakshmi, Dr.S. Prem Kumar

[4] Wouter Tavernier,Dimitri Papadimitriou, Didier

Colle, Mario Pickavet, Piet Demeester, Automated
Learning of Loop-Free Alternate Paths for Fast Re-
Routing, Department of Information Technology
(INTEC), Ghent University IBBT, Gaston
Crommenlaan 8, 9050 Gent, Belgium,2011.

[5] S. Bryant, C. Filsfils, S.Previdi, M. Shand, IP

Fast Reroute using tunnels, internet-Draft Internet
Engineering Task Force, November 16, 2007.

[6] S. Bryant, M. Shand,IP Fast Reroute

Framework, internet-Draft , Internet Engineering
Task Force, January, 2010.

[7] S. Bryant, S. Previdi, M. Shand, IP Fast Reroute

Using Not-via Addresses, internet-Draft , Internet
Engineering Task Force, December 21, 2011.

International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends (IJCERT ) 103 | P a g e