Avoiding transient loops through interface-specific forwarding

  • Authors:
  • Zifei Zhong;Ram Keralapura;Srihari Nelakuditi;Yinzhe Yu;Junling Wang;Chen-Nee Chuah;Sanghwan Lee

  • Affiliations:
  • Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC;Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA;Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC;Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN;Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC;Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA;Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

  • Venue:
  • IWQoS'05 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Quality of Service
  • Year:
  • 2005

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Under link-state routing protocols such as OSPF and IS-IS, when there is a change in the topology, propagation of link-state announcements, path recomputation, and updating of forwarding tables (FIBs) will all incur some delay before traffic forwarding can resume on alternate paths. During this convergence period, routers may have inconsistent views of the network, resulting in transient forwarding loops. Previous remedies proposed to address this issue enforce a certain order among the nodes in which they update their FIBs. While such approaches succeed in avoiding transient loops, they incur additional message overhead and increased convergence delay. We propose an alternate approach, loopless interface-specific forwarding (LISF), that averts transient loops by forwarding a packet based on both its incoming interface and destination. LISF requires no modifications to the existing link-state routing mechanisms. It is easily deployable with current routers since they already maintain a FIB at each interface for lookup efficiency. This paper presents the LISF approach, proves its correctness, discusses three alternative implementations of it and evaluates their performance.