The Segment Routing Architecture

Filsfils, Clarence; Nainar, Nagendra Kumar; Pignataro, Carlos; Cardona, Juan Camilo; François, Pierre

doi:10.1109/glocom.2014.7417124

Cited by 24 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The security considerations for SR are described in [RFC8402]. The security considerations pertaining to RSVP-TE are described in [RFC5920].…”

Section: Security Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Introduction of SR [RFC8402] in the same network domain as RSVP-TE [RFC3209] presents the problem of accounting for SR traffic and making RSVP-TE aware of the actual available bandwidth on the network links. RSVP-TE is not aware of how much bandwidth is being consumed by SR services on the network links; hence, both at computation time (for a distributed computation) and at signaling time, RSVP-TE LSPs will incorrectly place loads.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Path (LSP) Coexistence

Sivabalan¹,

Minei²,

Beeram³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The security considerations for SR are described in [RFC8402]. The security considerations pertaining to RSVP-TE are described in [RFC5920].…”

Section: Security Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Path (LSP) Coexistence

Sivabalan¹,

Minei²,

Beeram³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Our proposed architecture realization leverages existing technologies and can be implemented today. It relies on a link-state IGP like IS-IS at the connectivity layer, and Segment Routing (SR) [3] at the optimization one. SR enables our approach to be expressive and scalable: It indeed enables routers to enrich packets with instructions on intermediate destinations to be traversed, hence providing a perfect match to our MR model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By promising to overcome major problems of traditional per-device network management (e.g., see [1]), centralized architectures enabled by protocols like OpenFlow [2] and segment routing [3] are attracting huge interest from both researchers and operators. Two features are key to this success: declarativity and expressiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Declarative and Expressive Approach to Control Forwarding Paths in Carrier-Grade Networks

Hartert

Vissicchio

Schaus

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication

Self Cite

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SDN simplifies network management by relying on declarativity (high-level interface) and expressiveness (network flexibility). We propose a solution to support those features while preserving high robustness and scalability as needed in carrier-grade networks. Our solution is based on (i) a two-layer architecture separating connectivity and optimization tasks; and (ii) a centralized optimizer called DEFO, which translates high-level goals expressed almost in natural language into compliant network configurations. Our evaluation on real and synthetic topologies shows that DEFO improves the state of the art by (i) achieving better trade-offs for classic goals covered by previous works, (ii) supporting a larger set of goals (refined traffic engineering and service chaining), and (iii) optimizing large ISP networks in few seconds. We also quantify the gains of our implementation, running Segment Routing on top of IS-IS, over possible alternatives (RSVP-TE and OpenFlow). ABSTRACT SDN simplifies network management by relying on declarativity (high-level interface) and expressiveness (network flexibility). We propose a solution to support those features while preserving high robustness and scalability as needed in carrier-grade networks. Our solution is based on (i) a two-layer architecture separating connectivity and optimization tasks; and (ii) a centralized optimizer called DEFO, which translates high-level goals expressed almost in natural language into compliant network configurations. Our evaluation on real and synthetic topologies shows that DEFO improves the state of the art by (i) achieving better trade-offs for classic goals covered by previous works, (ii) supporting a larger set of goals (refined traffic engineering and service chaining), and (iii) optimizing large ISP networks in few seconds. We also quantify the gains of our implementation, running Segment Routing on top of IS-IS, over possible alternatives (RSVP-TE and OpenFlow).

show abstract

“…For reliability and scalability, a SDN controller should also be replicated and geographically distributed, leading to additional challenges in managing controller state. Finally, the de-centralized/SDN distributed/traditional hybrid OpenFlow [2], PCE [3], SR [4] IGP [5,6], RSVP-TE [ highest (any path) -low for IGP (shortest paths) high (any non-loopy paths) -highest for RSVP (any path) Table 1: Fibbing combines the advantages of existing control planes, avoiding the main drawbacks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central Control Over Distributed Routing

Vissicchio

Tilmans

Vanbever

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Centralizing routing decisions offers tremendous flexibility, but sacrifices the robustness of distributed protocols. In this paper, we present Fibbing, an architecture that achieves both flexibility and robustness through central control over distributed routing. Fibbing introduces fake nodes and links into an underlying link-state routing protocol, so that routers compute their own forwarding tables based on the augmented topology. Fibbing is expressive, and readily supports flexible load balancing, traffic engineering, and backup routes. Based on high-level forwarding requirements, the Fibbing controller computes a compact augmented topology and injects the fake components through standard routing-protocol messages. Fibbing works with any unmodified commercial routers speaking OSPF. Our experiments also show that it can scale to large networks with many forwarding requirements, introduces minimal overhead, and quickly reacts to network and controller failures.

show abstract

The Segment Routing Architecture

Cited by 24 publications

References 9 publications

Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Path (LSP) Coexistence

Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Path (LSP) Coexistence

A Declarative and Expressive Approach to Control Forwarding Paths in Carrier-Grade Networks

Central Control Over Distributed Routing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About