IS-IS Protocol with Segment Routing

Ajay Kumar under ETC, Al-Musanna College of Technology.

Acknowledgement
The generous help of many people has assisted the
writing of this paper. I feel that I was very fortunate to
receive assistance from them. I wish to express my sincere
appreciation to them. His great intuition, profound
knowledge, remarkable research expertise and inspiring
comments made the work challenging while hopeful and
fruitful, and enabled me to succeed in my future.
First and foremost, I am indebted to my supervisor & Mentor,
Ms. Zainab Al Ma’wali, Head of Educational Center, Al-
Musanna College of Technology, who has been very supportive
at every stage of this paper.
I would also like to thank our Research Paper Technical
Guide, Mr. Naseeb Al-Omrani, Head of Section (Computer
Services Sections), Al-Musanna College of Technology, for
his technical guidance, support and motivation.
I wish to express my utmost appreciation to them for his
invaluable advice and patience in reading, correcting and
commenting on the drafts of my paper. I am thankful to all
whosoever have contributed in this research work and
friendly stay at ACT.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for node-to-node paths within IGP
topologies by define configurations of topological with sub-paths,
called segments. SR will transform routing in the MPLS backbone. In
addition, SR succeed to eliminate the many disadvantages of classic
MPLS traffic with RSVP signaling and in combination with SDN
controllers. In addition, an SR network gains the ability to enable
Fast Rerouting (FRR) for all links backbone and participates
effortlessly with an existing MPLS backbone. These segments are
Segment Routing network is capable of selecting any path to forward
traffic, whether it is explicit or Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
shortest paths and advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-
IS and OSPF). In this paper, I arguably conduct the first systematic
study of IS-IS with Segment routing used to SDN established WANs and
I will deliver a theoretical characteristics of the problems. I will
to find out that for basic segment routing, where flows can be take
any path that goes through center point, the resulting IS-IS is NP-
hard. In the first time, I consider segment routing with find shortest
paths only, and prove that the IS-IS problem can be solved in
polynomial time when the number of center points per path is fixed and
not port the input. In the second part of the paper, we study practical
IS-IS using shortest path based segment routing. I noticed that
existing concepts work by taking each defined route as a candidate
CenterPoint and used linear program which is partially slow. I have
target to choose a few important nodes as CenterPoint’s for all routed
traffic. I use node centrality concepts from graph theory, choose as
a group shortest path centrality, for CenterPoint selection. Our
performance assesses by realistic topologies and route traces and most
of nodes can get good response and results.
Index Terms: Segment Routing, IS-IS, Graph Centrality, MPLS, FRR,
IGP(Explicit/Interior), Traffic Engineering
Contents
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction 1-5
1.1 IS-IS
1.2 Segment Routing
1.3 Segment Routing Terminology
2. A Coverage on Segment Routing 6-10
2.1 How Segment Routing Works
2.2 Role of Segment Routing in WAN
3. SR Demonstration Environment with IS-IS 11-21
3.1 SR Topology
3.2 Explain Topology
3.3 Configure SR Policy Explicit Path Using CLI
3.4 Policy Configure with SR Dynamic Path
3.5 Testing ODN with Service Policy
4. Conclusion 22
5. Reference 23
List of Abbreviations
BGP Border Gateway Protocol
CEF Cisco Express Forwarding
FRR Fast Reroute
IS-IS Intermediate System to Intermediate System
MPLS -TE Multi-Protocol Label Switching-TE
SR Segment Routing
SDN Software Defined Network
SRGB Segment Routing Global Block
SRTE Segment Routing Traffic Engineering
TE Traffic Engineering
VRF Virtual Routing and Forwarding
XRVR Cisco IOX XRv for Virtual Machine
XTC XR Transport Controller
VIRL Virtual Internet Routing Lab
Introduction
Segment Routing provides a tunneling mechanism that enables source
routing. Paths are determined as sequences of topological sub-paths
called segments, which are advertised by link-state routing protocols
(IS-IS and OSPF). Segment routing is a network technology focused on
addressing the limitations of existing IP and Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) networks in terms of simplicity, scale, and ease of
operation. It is a foundation for application engineered routing as
it prepares the networks for new business models where applications
can control the network behavior. Segment routing seeks the right
balance between distributed intelligence and centralized optimization
and programming. It was built for the software-defined networking
(SDN) era. Segment routing enhances packet forwarding behavior by
enabling a network to transport unicast packets through a specific
forwarding path, different from the normal path that a packet usually
takes (IGP shortest path or BGP best path). This capability benefits
many use cases, and one can build those specific paths based on
application requirements.
1.1 IS-IS [1]is a link-state Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). Link-
state protocols are considered by the broadcast of the information
required to build a complete network connectivity map on each router.
That map is then used to calculate the shortest path to destinations.
ISO/IEC 10589 defines support for the ISO Connectionless Network
Protocol (CLNP) as defined in ISO 8473. However, the protocol was
designed to be extensible to other network protocols. RFC 1195 defined
IS-IS support for IP, and additional IETF extensions have defined IS-
IS support for IPv6. Integration of support for multiple network layer
protocols has led to the term Integrated IS-IS. The Cisco IOS IS-IS
implementation supports CLNP, IPv4, and IPv6.
Later amendments to the network services specification, which appeared
in "Network Service Definition, Amendment 1," defined the capabilities

P a g e 1 | 23
for enabling connectionless communication between network devices,
referred to as Connectionless Network Services (CLNS). Unlike CONS,
CLNS does not require a predefined and preset up of the end-to-end
path for forwarding data packets between two communicating devices.
Instead, it provides a datagram service in which each data packet is
forwarded independently by routers along the currently known best
path between the source and destination. The connectionless datagram
service defined by CLNS is supported by the following ISO protocols
IS-IS was designed as part of the
CLNS environment to provide the
necessary intelligence for
automatic and dynamic routing of
data packets in ISO CLNS
networking environments. From its
inception, the IS-IS protocol has
been adapted for IP routing and
other capabilities, such as
traffic engineering with
Multiprotocol Label Switching Fig 1. Diagram of ISO protocols
(MPLS).
ISO 8473— Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP) for providing the
CLNS
ISO 9542— End System-to-Intermediate System (ES-IS) routing exchange
protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the
CLNS.
ISO 10589— Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) Inter
domain routing exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the
protocol for providing the connectionless-mode service. CLNP was
designed to use a hop-by-hop route -selection mechanism to move data
within a network. The IS-IS protocol was specified to automate the
best path calculation and selection process.

P a g e 2 | 23
1.2 Segment Routing: [2] is a recently suggested routing design to
tackle this challenge. Its key idea is to perform routing based on a
sequence of logical segments formed by some CenterPoint’s between the
ingress and egress routers. A segment is the logical pipe between two
center point that may include multiple physical paths spanning
multiple hops and ECMP is used to load balance traffic among selected
paths. Now with segment routing instead of end-to-end paths,
intermediate switches only need to know how to reach center point and
ready to forward packets. Thus segment routing has the potential to
greatly reduce the overhead and cost of IS-IS with Segment routing.
SR is essentially proposed as a replacement for LDP or RSVP-TE, where
the IGP (currently ISIS or OSPF) has been extended to incorporate the
MPLS labelling and segment-routing functions internally, leading to
the immediate obvious benefit, of not having to run an additional
protocol alongside the IGP to provide the MPLS functionality – we can
do everything inside ISIS or OSPF. Segment-routing can operate over
an IPv4 or IPv6 data-plane, supports ECMP and also has extensions
built into it, which allow it cater for things like L3-VPNs or VPLS
running over the top.
Source Routing the source chooses a path and encodes it in the packet
header as an ordered list of segments.
Segment: An identifier for any type of instruction “Service, Context,
Locator, IGP-based forwarding construct, BGP-based forwarding
construct and Local value or Global Index”
Segment = Instructions such as “go to node N using the shortest path”

IP/MPLS architecture that seeks the right balance between distributed

intelligence and centralized optimization and programming.
SR is true L3 MPLS. Including topology discovery and route
selection. Segment routing eliminates state from the network and puts
it in the packets and No LSP tables. SR provides incremental control

P a g e 3 | 23
over traffic steering. Excellent for Link State and centralized path
computation. Only the edge nodes need to be integrated with the PCE
engine. SR binds well to IP signaling and legacy MPLS LSRs. SR supports
multiple paths through the network path and maximizing network
utilization.
Segment routing has been explored with IS-IS protocols in some existing
work. For example, Bhatia et al.[3] apply 2-segment routing to TE,
where any logical path contains only one Center point and thus two
segments. Hartert[5] propose some heuristics to solve various TE
problems with segment routing. There lacks a thorough exploration and
understanding of applying segment routing to TE, particularly the
hardness of the resulting TE problem, and the development of practical
TE algorithms with segment routing.
In this paper, we conduct arguably the first systematic study of IS-
IS with segment routing in SDN based WANs. We first focus on the
theoretical aspects of IS-IS with segment routing. We consider two
common types of IS-IS. IS-IS that maximizing total throughput based
on multi-commodity flow, and TELU that minimizes the maximum link
utilization. TEMF is mostly for data center backbone WANs and TELU
mostly for carrier networks.
We provide new hardness results for TE with segment routing in directed
networks. With general segment routing where traffic can take any path
that goes through a Center point, we prove that it is NP-hard to decide
if the maximum flow through just one given Center point is greater
than 0. Thus TEMF is NP-hard. Due to the connection between the decision
version of maximum flow and TELU, this also proves that TELU given a
single fixed Center point is NP-hard. We then study a restricted form
of segment routing that uses only shortest paths between two segments,
and prove that both TE problems now can be solved in (weakly)
polynomial time as an LP when the number of Center points per path is
fixed and not part of the input. Our results thus provide a theoretical
foundation for existing work that focuses on shortest path based
segment routing.
P a g e 4 | 23
Finally, I commenting that our work is of independent theoretical
interest for two reasons. First, our theoretical analysis for IS-ISMF
can be used to prove that the flow centralities, first introduced in
1991 by Freeman, Borgatti, and White[6], are NP-hard to compute in
directed graphs, thus restricting their practical applicability.
Second, we show a thoughtful opposition between directed and
undirected networks: IS-IS and flow centralities are NP-hard to
compute in the former. These results are included in Appendices at the
end.
1.3 Segment Routing terminology
 SegmentID (SID): is an MPLS label.

 Segment List (SL) (SID List): is the sequence of SIDs that the
packet will traverse.

 SR Policy: is a set of candidate paths (SID list weight). An SR

policy is uniquely identified by its Binding SID and associated with
a weighted set of Segment Lists. In case several SID lists are
defined, traffic steered into the policy is unevenly load-balanced
among them according to their respective weights.

 Binding SID: Binding SID is a SID (only one) associated one-one

with an SR Policy. If a packet arrives with MPLS label corresponding
to a Binding SID, then the SR policy will be applied to such packet.
(Binding SID is popped first.)

P a g e 5 | 23
2. A BASIC COVERAGE ON SEGMENT ROUTING
I will start by introducing SR and the benefit of applying it to
IS-IS. In next I will explain related work on segment routing. Segment
routing [7] is a recently proposed architecture based on source routing
that facilitates packet forwarding via a series of segments. It can
be directly applied to MPLS and IPv6. The key idea is that the ingress
switch can break up the end-to-end logical path into segments, and
specify this logical path as a series of Center points to traverse.
SR is that it can greatly
reduce routing cost in terms
of number of flow table entries
required. To consider the next
specimen shown in Figure 1.
Fig 2 SR Saves Flow Table Entries 1
Three demands1, which refer to
the aggregated flows between a Node Without SR With SR
unique ingress-egress switch A 2 2
pair, are routed through three B 1 1
paths P1, P2, and P3 to their C 3 1
respective destinations. With D 3 1
tunnel-based forwarding in SDN E 3 3
[11], each intermediate switch
Table 1. HOP Count without/with SR
needs to store flow entries for
each demand, and in total 12 entries are needed as shown in Table II.
Now if segment routing is applied with node E as the Center point, the
three paths can be represented using just two labels each as in Figure
2, and switches C and D only need to have one entry in order to forward
to the Center Point E. The total number of entries is reduced to only
8, with 33.3% saving.
2.1 How Segment Routing Works : [8] A MPLS based router in a SR
network is capable of selecting any path to forward traffic. A segment
has an identifier that is distributed throughout the network using new
IGP extensions and support to IPv4 and IPv6 control planes. In SR do

P a g e 6 | 23
not require Labal Distribution Protocol(LDP ) to allocate or signal
their segemtn identifiers and program their forwarding information.
Each router (as node) and each link (as adjacency) has an linked
segment identifier (SID). Node segment identifiers are globally unique
and denote the shortest path to a router as determined by the IGP.
Secondly an adjacency segment ID is locally significant and represents
a specific adjacency, like egress interface, to connecting router.
Routers will generate automatically adjacency identifiers outside of
the reserved block of node IDs. In an MPLS network, a segment
identifier is encoded as an MPLS label stack entry. There are two
kinds of segment IDS:
Prefix SID— A segment ID that holds an IP address prefix calculated
by an IGP in the service provider internal core network and it’s
unique. A node SID is a special form of prefix SID that holds the
loopback address of the node as the prefix and It is advertised as an
index into the node specific SR Global Block or SRGB.
Adjacency SID — A segment ID that holds an advertising router’s
adjacency to a neighbor. An adjacency SID is a link between two routers
and related with a specific router. Adjancey SID is working locally
unique. When SR is instantiated over the MPLS data plane, the following
actions apply:
• A list of segments is represented as a stack of labels.
• The active segment is the top label.
• The CONTINUE operation is implemented as an MPLS swap operation.
• The NEXT operation is implemented as an MPLS pop operation.
• The PUSH operation is implemented as an MPLS push operation

P a g e 7 | 23
Examples for Segment Routing [9] – In
MPLS network with five routers using
Segment Routing, IS-IS, a label range of
100 to 199 for node IDs and 200 and higher
for adjacency IDs. IS-IS would
distribute IP prefix reachability
alongside segment ID across the network.
In this figure, any router sending traffic Fig 3 MPLS with Five
to router E and PUSH label 103 Router using SR
to forward traffic using the IS-IS
shortest path. The MPLS label switching
operation at each hop preserves label 103
until the packet arrives at E.
Second, adjacency segments are behave
differently. For example, if apacket
arries at Router D with a top-of-stack
MPLS label of 203, Router D would POP the
label and forward the traffic to Router Fig 4 MPLS Label-Swapping
E. Operation

A segment list can holds several

adjacency segments, several node
segments, or a combination of both
depending on the forwarding
requirements. In the previous example,
Router A could alternatively push label
stack (104, 203) to reach Router E using
the shortest path and all applicable
ECMPs to Router D and then through an
explicit interface onto the destination Fig 5 Router E Destination
Path
(Figure 5). Router A does not need to
signal the new path, and the state information remains constant in the
network. Router A ultimately enforces a forwarding policy that

P a g e 8 | 23
determines which flows destinated to router E are switched through a
particular path.
2.2 Role of Segment Routing in WAN :
Ready for SDN - — SR is a exciting
architecture conceived to hold Software-
Defined Network (SDN) and it’s based for
Application Engineered Routing (AER). It
provide a balance between network-based
distributed intelligence, such as automatic
link and node protection, and controller-
based centralized intelligence, such as
traffic optimization. Segment routing can
Fig 6 SDN Controller
be easily integrated with a controller-
based SDN architecture. In this scenario, the controller has a complete
picture of the network topology and flows. A router can request a path
to a destination with certain characteristics, for example, delay,
bandwidth, diversity. At that point, the router can inject traffic
with the segment list without any additional signaling in the network.
 When applied to the MPLS data plane, Segment Routing offersthe
ability to tunnel MPLS services from an ingress provider edge to an
egress provider edge without any other protocol than an IGP.
 Simpler operation without separate protocolsfor label distribution
(for example, no LDPor RSVP).
 No complex LDP or IGP synchronization to troubleshoot.
 Better utilization of installed infrastructure, for lower capital
expenditures (CapEx), with ECMP-aware shortest path forwarding
(using node segment IDs).
Supports Fast Reroute (FRR)— Deliver automated FRR for any topology.
In case of link or node failures in a network, MPLS uses the FRR
mechanism for convergence. With segment routing, the convergence time
is sub-50-msec.

P a g e 9 | 23
Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB ) - is the range of labels reserved
for segment routing. SRGB is local property of an segment routing
node. In MPLS, architecture, SRGB is the set of local labels reserved
for global segments. The SRGB default value is 16000 to 23999. [11]
LDP RSVP-TE SR
Overview Multipoint to Point to Point Multipoint to
Point Point
Operation Simple LSP per Simple
destination/TE-Path
Dependencies Relies on IGP Relies on IGP TE Relies on IGP+
Offline TE
LBL Local Local Significant Global
Allocation Singificant per per node
node
TE No Yes Yes
Scaling 1 LBL Per Node No 1 LBL per node
Fast Reroute LFA, LFA Link/Node LFA, LFA
Policies protection-100% Policies,100%
Coverage coverage
Multicast mLDP P2MP RSVP TBD
IPv6 Extension Extension Required Native
required

Table 2 SR Comparison with LDP and RSVP-TE

P a g e 10 | 23
3.SR Demonstration Environment with IS-IS Protocol
In this part I will describe how to set up a segment routing virtual
demonstration environment and how to configure a virtual network
between SR capable software routers and hosts. The routers exchange
unicast IPv4 packets with standard MPLS operations, which can be
utilized to implement SR features in the network. The goal of this
section is to provide a comprehensive guide on how to install and
configure the demonstration environment VM [12].
In Our environment we try to how specify inter-domain explicit paths
using both old configuration commands and new SRTE-specific
configuration commands. We will also use XTC ( XR Transport Controller)
to calculate dynamic paths for locally configured SR policies. In SR
are calculate path automatically instantiate SR policies for services
by assigning BGP Community to the services prefixes by using on-demand
next hop (ODN).
3.1 SR Topology(dCloud Topology)
VLAN-PRIMARY: It’s working like
Private VLAN, same like as port
isolation.
Workstation: Connect remotely
through Cisco AnyConnect
VIRL: (L3 VLAN-1): Cisco's Virtual
Internet Routing Lab (VIRL) is a
network design and simulation
environment that includes a
graphical user interface, much
like GNS3. Capable of running a
range of VM running Cisco OS.

Fig 7 Cloud Based SR Lab Environment

Docker: configuration can also be
used in a variety of environments and decouples infrastructure
requirements from the application environment.

P a g e 11 | 23
  Segment Routing Configure Tasks: SR enables a unified, end-to-
end, policy for network architecture from servers in the data
center, through the WAN, and up to the aggregation.
 SR is designed for SDN because it seeks the proper balance between
distributed intelligence, centralized optimization, and
application-based policy creation.
 Other benefits of SR are related to operational simplicity,
better scale and better utilization of the installed
infrastructure.
3.2 Explain Topology
We have explained our network topology. The Network topology consists
of three level 2 only IS to IS domains. We have created two BPG
peering links between Domain1 and Domain2: one link between xrvr-3 and
xrvr-5 and another between xrvr-4 and xrvr-6. Border nodes xrvr-7 and
xrvr-8 interconnect Domain2 and Domain3 and border nodes run two ISIS
instances, one for each domain.
Domain As Numbder
Domain1 64001
Domain2 64002
Domain3 64003

Table 3 As number assign to Domain

P a g e 12 | 23
 Fig 8 Logical Topology ( ISIS 1,2 and 3)

Addressing Conventions with Nodes description

Loopback0 prefix of node xrvr-X: 1.1.1.X/32
Prefix-SID of node xrvr-X: 16000+X
Interface address of link xrvr-X: 99.X.Y.X (with X < Y)

P a g e 13 | 23
Steps
3.2.1 We are configuring alias like a1, a2, b3, b4 etc. and alias
command and identify which privilege level you want to specify
the alias.

3.2.2 On Router xrvr-1

enter the following command
to verify that segment
routing is enabled in all
three domains:
“segment-routing mpls”

P a g e 14 | 23
3.2.3 Verify the prefix-SID
configuration of node - xrvr-1
“prefix-sid absolute 16001”

3.2.4. Enter the following to

see xrvr-1 configuration
details and MPLS TE is enabled
globally and under IGP.
“mpls traffic-eng level-2-only”
“mpls traffic-eng router-id
Loopback0”
3.2.5. Each node feeds its
local TE databases with the
topology information of its
local domain.
Prefix SID: Prefix 1.1.1.2,
label 16002 (regular)
Adj SID: 24000 (protected)
24001 (unprotected)

P a g e 15 | 23
3.2.6. Enter the follow
command to see the prefix
100.1.1 .10/32 in vrf LIVE
advertised by xrvr-1
receives this
advertisement and installs
it in RIB,

3.2.7. Enter the following

command and notice the cef
entry of vrf LIVE
100.1.1.10/32 is
unresolved because there
is no labeled path to the
next-hop: “unresolved”

P a g e 16 | 23
3.3 Configure SR Policy Explicit Path Using CLI
Now we are demonstrating how to use the new CLI to configure an
explicit inter-domain SR policy. The new CLI follows the structure of
the SR policy as specified in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-
policy-00. In this scenario, configure an SR policy on xrvr-1 with an
explicit path to xrvr-10. The path is xrvr-1 -> xrvr-4 -> xrvr-6 ->
xrvr-8 -> xrvr-10. The segment that traverses the peering link between
xrvr-4 and xrvr-6 is an EPE peer-node-SID label.
3.3.1 On xvr-4, enter the
following command to collect
the currently allocated peer-
node-SID label. “Label:
24008” The peer-node-SID for
xrvr-6 on xrvr-4 is 24008.

3.3.2 On xrvr-1, enter the

following commands to
configure the explicit
path. The explicit path
expresses the SIDLIST of
the SR policy path. In this
example, the first segment
is expressed as an IPv4
address: the loopback
address 1.1.1.4 of xrvr-4.
The head-end xrvr-1 maps
this ipv4 address to the
corresponding Prefix-SID label 16004. The subsequent segments are
expressed as MPLS labels values.

P a g e 17 | 23
3.3.3 Path Specified by
SIDLIST1 The SR policy is
identified by its end-point
(1.1.1.10, in this example)
and its color (10, in this
example). By default, a
dynamic binding-SID label is
allocated for an SR policy.

Fig 9 Path Specified by SIDLIST1

3.3.4 On xrvr-1 verify the

forwarding entry of the SR
policy POL1 and the two
outgoing paths, one for each
of the equal cost paths of
the first segment 16004,
through xrvr-3 and via xrvr-
2.

3.4 Policy Configure with SR Dynamic Path:

In this scenario demonstrates how to instantiate an SR policy from a
locally configure interface tunnel-TE. The SR policy path can be
computed locally on the head-end, in the case XTC computes the inter-
domain path.
3.4.1 On xrvr-1, enter the
following commands to
instantiate an SR policy from
tunnel-TE, 21 interface and
configure the tunnel-TE
interface to request XTC to
compute a path to end-point
1.1.1.10 (xrvr-10). XTC must
optimize the IGP metric for the path. Alias e1 configures the
following:

P a g e 18 | 23
3.4.2 Verify the status of the
SR policy on xrvr-1. The
computed path is xrvr-1 ->
xrvr-3 -> xrvr-5 -> xrvr-7 ->
xrvr-10.

Figure 10 Optimized SR Policy Path of the IGP Metric

Xrvr-1 used PCEP PC Request and PC Reply messages to request and
receive the path computation. Then xrvr-1 sent a PC Report message to
report the SR Policy to both XTC nodes. In the report to its primary
XTC xrvr-11, xrvr-1 sets the delegate (D) flag, to indicate that xrvr-
11 can update the path.

P a g e 19 | 23
3.4.3 Enter the following
command to show the SR policy
information on XTC xrvr-11.

Result: Because head-end xrvr-

1 delegated the SR Policy to
XTC xrvr-12, stateful XTC
updates the SR policy.

3.4.4 Enter the following

command to see SR policy
information on XTC xrvr-12.

3.5 Testing ODN with Service Policy: One-demand next-hop cannot

only provide automatic inter-domain reachability; it can also provide
the inter-domain reachability with a service requirement policy, such
as low latency. This scenario demonstrates how to use a service
requirement policy.
The automatically instantiated inter-domain SR policy can provide a
specified treatment, such as low latency. In the current release,
latency of a link can be expressed by the TE metric. You can configure
the TE metric for any link. If the TE metric is not configured, the
TE metric defaults to the IGP metric of the link.

P a g e 20 | 23
3.5.1 In topology, the link between xrvr-5 and xrvr-7 has a TE metric
100. Enter the following command to look at the configuration of the
TE metric on interface
Gi0/0/0/1 on xrvr-5 and TE
metric link the low latency
path from xrvr-1 to xrvr-9
avoids the xrvr-5 to xrvr-
7 link.
“Admin-weight 100”

3.5.2 In this xrvr-9

advertises two prefixes in
vrf BLUE: 150.1.1.9/32 and
150.2.2.9/32 requires a
low-latency path and is
therefore tagged with
community 100:777. The
community is set with a
route-policy on the network
statement.
3.5.3 In approximately 1
minute, xrvr-1 receives the
vrf BLUE prefixes.
Attribute-set ODN-TE is
applied to 150.1.1.9/32 and
attribute-set ODN-IGP is
applied to 150.2.2.9/32.
Enter the following command
to confirm that the ODN-TE
and ODN-IGP are applied:

P a g e 21 | 23
5.Conclusion
The aim of this project, to study segment routing and test its traffic
engineering capabilities in MPLS networks by building a virtualized
testing environment under Cisco dcloud labs. SR architecture combines
the source routing pattern, existing routing protocols, and SDN
features in a unique way that is at the same time cost effective and
relatively simply to implement.
Even though SR is undertaking a standardization process, it seems to
be a prominent technology which can answer the rapidly growing
scalability demands in large networks, without compromising security.
It will be interesting to see if the IPv6 implementation of SR could
turn out to be the most popular implementation. SR is even simpler to
implement with the IPv6 extension compared to the MPLS extension as
it requires no additional labels to operate.
The selected Cisco virtualized demonstration environment was a little
challenging to use at first. The detailed instructions in the study
should provide an excellent starting point for more advanced SR tests
in the future. The creation of policies and tunnels is very simple due
to close resemblance with the Cisco OS command structure and syntax.
However, it should be noted that more advanced TE tests with the
demonstration environment will likely require deep understanding of
the Python language. The environment had severe issues when artificial
network failures were introduced into the network and will require
fixes and improvements to the ONOS controller code base. Our
performance evaluation demonstrated that just a small percentage of
powerful nodes can achieve good results at very low time complexities.

P a g e 22 | 23
References
1. Abe Martey Copyright 2002 Cisco Press book “IS-IS Network Design
Solutions” Chapter 2, Page 39
2. C. Filsfils, S. Previdi, A. Bashandy, and Decraene, “Segment outing
with MPLS data plane,” Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet
Draft (Work in Progress) draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-
00, 2014
3. https://2017.apricot.net/assets/files/APIC674/apricot%202017%20-
%20segment%20routing%20tutorial%20v1.0_1488330418.pdf
4. R. Bhatia, F. Hao, M. Kodialam, and T. V. Lakshman, “Optimized
Network Traffic Engineering using Segment Routing,” in Proc. IEEE
INFOCOM, 2015
5. R. Hartert, S. Vissicchio, P. Schaus, O. Bonaventure, C. Filsfils,
T. Telkamp, and P. Francois, “A Declarative and Expressive Approach
to Control Forwarding Paths in Carrier-Grade Networks,” in Proc.
ACMSIGCOMM, 2015.
6. L. C. Freeman, S. P. Borgatti, and D. R. White, “Centrality in
valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow,”
Social Networks, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 141–154, 1991.
7. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxml/ios/seg_routing/con
figuration/xe-16/segrt-xe-16-book/intro-seg-routing.html Chapter
2
8. C. Filsfils, S. Previdi, A. Bashandy, and Decraene, “Segment
routing with mpls data plane,” Internet Engineering Task Force,
Internet Draft (Work in Progress) draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-mpls-00, 2014.
9. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxml/ios/seg_routing/con
figuration/xe-16/segrt-xe-16-book/intro-seg-routing.html Chapter
2 page 5
10. https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/124568/Litmanen_I
lpo.pdf?sequence...
11. C.-Y. Hong, S. Kandula, R. Mahajan, M. Zhang, V. Gill, M.
Nanduri,and R. Wattenhofer, “Achieving high utilization with
software-driven WAN,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 2013.
12. https://dcloud2-rtp.cisco.com/demo/cisco-segment-routing-v3

P a g e 23 | 23