View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Capacity Requirements for Network Recovery from Capacity Requirements for Network Recovery from Node Failure with Dynamic Path RestorationNode Failure with Dynamic Path Restoration
Gangxiang Shen and Wayne D. Grover Gangxiang Shen and Wayne D. Grover TRTRLabsLabs and University of Alberta and University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, CanadaEdmonton, AB, Canada
((presented bypresented by Jennifer Yates, AT&T ResearchJennifer Yates, AT&T Research) )
OFC 2003, OFC 2003, Tuesday March 25 2003, Atlanta, Georgia Tuesday March 25 2003, Atlanta, Georgia
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 2
OutlineOutline
• Path Restoration & Node Recovery
• Research Questions
• Design Models
• Results
• Summary of Findings
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 3
Background on Path RestorationBackground on Path Restoration
• Long recognized that a path restoration mechanism will “handle node failure as well as span failures.”
• But this is a statement about the mechanism,not an assurance of adequate spare capacity to permit the mechanism to realize full node recovery.
Question: How much (extra) spare capacity is needed for node recovery via a path restoration mechanism?
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 4
Some Background and Points about Node RecoverySome Background and Points about Node Recovery
• We consider dynamic adaptive path restoration (not preplanned backup path protection).
• What is the actual aim in node recovery?– It cannot be the same as in restoration of a span failure, because...– Demands that source / sink at a failed node cannot be restored by
network re-routing. Seek to restore 100% of transiting flows through a failed node.
• Aside: (observations about node survivability in general) – In a sense, it is already “too late” when we rely on network re-routing in
response to a node failure. Good backup power, fire, security, and software are the primary
strategies for node survivability
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 5
Initial Appreciations about Node RecoveryInitial Appreciations about Node Recovery
Capacity design to support node recovery has two opposing complexions:
1. It is equivalent to 2 to perhaps 6 simultaneous span failures, depending on node degree: this suggests a lot of extra spare capacity may be needed.
On the other hand,
2. demands terminating at the failed node “disappear from the problem.” this suggests node failure problems may not be quite as difficult as it
seems.
especially if “stub release” applies to the unrestorable demands
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 6
Concept of Stub ReleaseConcept of Stub Release
• Stub release (SR) refers to reuse of capacity on surviving portions of failed paths in the overall restoration effort.
• It is an option under dynamic path restoration.
• SR makes the overall response failure-specific and more efficient than using only fully disjoint predefined backup paths
• However, it requires fault isolation to the respective span (or opaque segment)
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 7
Illustrating concept of Stub releaseIllustrating concept of Stub release
Pre-failure demands
Span Failure
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 8
Illustrating concept of Stub releaseIllustrating concept of Stub release
Possible Restoration / Protectionwith strictly Disjoint backup paths
(no stub release)
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 9
Concept of Stub ReleaseConcept of Stub Release
Possible Restoration with stub release
Failure-specific re-use of surviving
path segments (for same or other
demands)
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 10
Network Recovery from Node FailureNetwork Recovery from Node Failure
• With a node failure, not only are terminating demands “not part of the restoration problem,”
• But in addition, with stub release such failed paths may contribute useful extra “spare” capacity network-wide.
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 11
Illustrating Issues in Recovery from Node FailureIllustrating Issues in Recovery from Node Failure
Pre-failure demands
and Node Failure
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 12
Illustrating Issues in Recovery from Node FailureIllustrating Issues in Recovery from Node Failure
(a) Recovery from Node Failure without Stub release:
(1) Red demand is not included in the restoration effort
(2) Green demand has to take fully disjoint path
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 13
Illustrating Issues in Recovery from Node FailureIllustrating Issues in Recovery from Node Failure
b) Recovery from Node Failure with Stub release:
(1) Red demand is (again) not included in the restoration effort
(2) Surviving segments of red demand are released as equivalent-to-spare capacity
(3) Green demand can take shorter replacement path
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 14
Specific Research QuestionsSpecific Research Questions
What are the maximum levels of node recovery that can be achieved with no more spare capacity than required for 100% span restoration? Call this the “Intrinsic Node Recovery” Level
How much additional spare capacity is required to guarantee both 100% node and span restoration compared to span restorability only?
How does capacity depend on the mix of services in a multiple Quality of Protection (multi-QoP) context ? consider a mix of span-failure survivable (Rs) and “node plus span” - failure
protected (Rs+n) service assurances.
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 15
Optimization Models to Study these QuestionsOptimization Models to Study these Questions
1. Design for 100% span and node failure restoration -- minimize total spare capacity cost while Guaranteeing 100% span failure
restoration and 100% transiting flow node failure restoration
2. Design to support Multi-QoP
-- Extends the first model to accept a mix of: (1) Best-efforts only (R0) class (2) “Rs” class and (3) “Rs+n” class services
3. Maximal node recovery under spare capacity budget
-- accepts a budget total limit on spare capacity -- asserts 100% span restorability (required for feasibility) -- maximizes the node failure restorability given total spare capacity limit
Stub Release option: Each model has versions with and without stub release
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 16
Test Case ResultsTest Case Results
Networks ARPA2 NSFNET SmallNet Cost239 Level3
Intrinsic node recovery
No stub release
91.35% 99.84% 85.30% 78.89% 95.59%
Stub release 88.43% 99.60% 89.40% 82.85% 99.998%
Redundancy increase
(Rs+n vs. Rs)
No stub release
10.0% 0.02% 2.6% 3.4% 4.1%
Stub release 9.7% 0.03% 2.8% 1.4% 0.1%
Total cost inc. (Rs+n vs. Rs)
No stub release
5.2% 0.01% 1.7% 2.4% 2.0%
Stub release 5.3% 0.02% 1.9% 1.0% 0.001%
• Five test networks• Uniform random 1..20 demands on each O-D pair -> lots of transiting flows• Costs proportional to distances.
Rn of networks designed only for Rs=1 (very high on average)
Added % spare capacity to strictly assure both Rs = 1, Rn =1 (very little on average)
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 17
Results (2)Results (2)
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.95
0.97
0.99
1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.1 1.12Relative increase in total spare capacity
Ave
rage
nod
e fa
ilure
res
tora
bilit
y
ARPA2 (no stub release)ARPA2 (stub release)SmallNet (no stub release)SmallNet (stub release)
Node restorability versus total budget allowance for spare capacity (relative to Rs=1 design)
In prior table and here we see that SR cases approach Rn =1, more slowly than non –SR case.
!!??
…Reason is that non-SR designs for span restorability only had more spare capacity to begin with.
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 18
Results (3)Results (3)
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.1
1.12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of R(s,n) restorable demand node pairs
Re
lati
ve i
ncre
as
e in
spa
re c
ap.
ARP A2 (no stub release)ARP A2 (stub release)NSFNET (no stub release)NSFNET (stub release)SmallNet (no stub release)SmallNet (stub release)
Spare capacity increase required to support different percentages of (Rs+n) services
-> Depending on network, 30 to 60% of services could be given “Rs+n” service assurance with no extra capacity.
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 19
Summary of FindingsSummary of Findings
• Very high levels of node recovery are intrinsically feasible in networks using path restoration in networks designed nominally for only span restorability.
• High levels of premium (“node and span failure assured resilience”) service guarantees can be supported without any penalty in terms of added spare capacity.
• Stub release is an important advantage of dynamic adaptive path-restorable networks in achieving the highest overall availability if we consider node recovery or multiple span and node/span combined failures.
Capacity Requirements for Network Recovery from Capacity Requirements for Network Recovery from Node Failure with Dynamic Path RestorationNode Failure with Dynamic Path Restoration
End
(Thanks Jennifer ! )
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 21
An Example: NSFNET An Example: NSFNET
Spare capacity optimized for single span failures
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 22
Preliminary Look at counteracting effects Preliminary Look at counteracting effects (NSFNet)(NSFNet)
This can give an a priori indication of which node failures may have the most / least severe effects.
Demand
matrix
Demand “relief”
Spare capacity loss from node
outage
Gangxiang Shen & Wayne D. Grover OFC ‘03 Atlanta 23
Understanding why Node Recovery takes so little Understanding why Node Recovery takes so little extra capacityextra capacity
Path Restorationof the span failure
Node Failure affectingthe same two demands
•Green path still needs restoration
•Red path is (necessarily) abandoned