Phase III RS-960 Deployment Status Update
Phase-III Deployment Status Update ================================== Jordan Becker, ANS Mark Knopper, Merit The phase-III deployment schedule involving the replacement of "Hawthorne" T3 interface adapters and DSU cards in the RS/6000 T3 routers is progressing on-schedule. We have completed our system testing and are conducting on-going regression tests on the test network (recent testing and upgrade activies described below). Pending any un-foreseen problems that come up, the hardware upgrades will begin on Friday 4/24 at 23:00 local time at the Seattle CNSSs, Denver CNSSs, Seattle ENSS143, Boulder ENSS141, and Salt Lake ENSS142. In preparation for the upgrade, we have been making software changes to the production T3 system in advance to support the hardware upgrades that are scheduled to begin on 4/24. These changes include a new system software build that supports the RS960 drivers, kernel, and microcode. We are also installing a new SNMP program that support the new c-bit parity DSU function, and several bug fixes for existing FDDI and T960 ethernet freeze problems. The proposed maintainance window for these network software upgrades is as follows: 1. 4/21 at 12-1am EDT: Install build 2.78.22 on Seattle CNSS's 88, 89 and 91; Denver CNSS's 96, 97, and 99; University of Washington ENSS 143; Boulder ENSS 141; and Salt Lake ENSS 142. (done) 2. 4/22 at 6am EDT: Install build 2.78.22 on San Francisco CNSS's 8, 9, and 11; Los Angeles CNSS's 16, 17, and 19; Palo Alto ENSS 128; NASA Ames/FIX-W ENSS 144; and San Diego ENSS 135. With the cutover of traffic from T1->T3 of FIX-W, Westnet-E, CICnet, NCAR and Midnet in the last 2 weeks, we will halt any additional regional traffic cut-overs until after the phase-III upgrades are stabilized. We are in the process of contacting each regional individually to discuss the upgrade and what you can do to help us ensure that this goes as smoothly as possible. We will be requesting coordination with regionals in the use of the T1 backbone as backup to the T3 system during different points in the upgrade schedule. This may require employing emergency procedures such as disabling AS peer sessions to the T3 backbone on some regionals if we run into trouble (not that we anticipate that, since we are confident that testing has been very thorough). During the upgrade schedule, there will be a growing router cloud that supports the RS960 T3 technology and a shrinking router cloud that supports the Hawthorne T3 technology. We have designed the interface points between these clouds to try and minimize traffic flow across them at any give time since the T3 system is carrying considerable traffic and these "hybrid links" represent a potential performance bottleneck. A internal T3 routing link metric assignment plan is being generated to minimize Hawthorne-cloud to RS960-cloud traffic (by assigning an increased metric to selected T3 hybrid links). We are performing an AS-AS regional traffic simulation to design these internal link metrics in an way that balances traffic flow across the T3 system and avoids over-loading of the hybrid links. We have already done some initial experimentation with different link metrics and validated the results. These link metrics will be changed manually by our engineers at different points in the deployment process to spread the load across the hybrid links and thus minimize load on any single hybrid machine. An appendix to this message contains some more information on metric adjustments and how these were determined and verified. This work is credited to Elise Gerich of the Merit IE group. We would like to develop a procedure and plan with each regional for cutover to the T1 backbone during scheduled periods, and during possible unscheduled periods in the event that a hybrid link should get too close to saturation. We would like to coordinate a plan where our engineers maintain a pre-designated list of T3 ENSS nodes in each phase of the deployment that get configured down (off-line), in conjuction with a regional switching their routing over to divert traffic to the T1 backbone. Phase-III Technology Testing Status =================================== Since our last update on phase-III deployment testing, we have closed several problems that were identified and we will continue to regression test up to and during the deployment, and maintain a scaled down replica of the T3 system configuration on the T3 research network during the deployment. This will allow us to continue testing and support any needed tests for problems that may be identified during the deployment. Since the last report, we have been focusing our test efforts in the following areas: 1. Regression tests for bug fixes in the current T3 system. We have fixed several bugs in the current production T3 network FDDI driver, T960 ethernet/T1 interface driver and associated microcode. These fixes have been merged into the production RS960 system software build scheduled for deployment this week and have been regression tested. 2. Stress testing of the new build. We have corrected an earlier problem we were experiencing with a test tool that copies all production ethernet traffic with a new destination address onto the T3 Research network to simulate real production network traffic flows. This so called "copy tool" is working on the test network and has been a major component of our stress testing. 3. Full RS960 (4 interface) configuration testing. We have focused much of our testing over the last couple of months on the mixed technology configurations (e.g. Hawthorne T3 adapters and RS960 T3 adapters co-resident in the same router and network) since we were most concerned about the actual deployment process. We have most recently tested the full RS960 (4 interfaces in a CNSS) configuration which we are less concerned about. 4. FDDI peering tests. We have tested ENSS configurations that include an FDDI interface and an RS960 T3 interface that peer with with 2 FDDI equipped Cisco routers. 5. Noise injection testing on T3 lines. We have tested noise injection on the T3 test network circuits with the aid of a test tool provided with the T3Plus Inc. BMX45 bandwidth manager. The results of these tests demonstrated a T3 technologies DSU problem involving SNMP sub-agent signalling. We have addressed this problem for now with a change to the SNMP sub-agent. A PROM change to the DSU will be installed at a later date to avoid any additional SNMP sub-agent overhead required to address this problem. Noise testing on the research network is ongoing, in an attempt to find additional problems during stress and other traffic load tests. 5. T3 routing software testing. One of the tests that we have always wanted to conduct on the T3 Research network is the simulation of 60+ internal routing peers that generate IS-IS LSPs which most accurately mimics the production T3 network. We never had enough nodes on the T3 Research network to generate more than 10 of these internal IBGP peer sessions before. We are now testing with a modified version of our routing software that generates multiple IBGP internal sessions so that we can simulate internal IS-IS routing exchanges with several more internal peers. This will improve our routing software test environment now and in the future. 6. T3 routing software enhancements. There are several new enhancements to the T3 routing software that we have tested with the RS960 technology including an auto-restart function in the event of a daemon failure, BGP version negotiation support, and correct support for the interpretation of inter-AS external metrics. These software changes are independant of the phase-III deployment and will be scheduled for deployment during a maintainence window that does not interfere with the phase-III deployment activities. Other Activities Related to RS960 Deployment -------------------------------------------- NOC training - The NOC requires well documented debugging procedures that operators can understand and execute without problems. This includes new man pages from engineers on RS960 utilities and commands (e.g. ifstat, ccstat, etc.). A disaster recovery procedures checklist has been drafted that includes information on how to recover from problems during and following the deployment. Appendix: Metric Adjustments on the T3 Network by Elise Gerich, Merit/NSFNET Internet Engineering (To fully appreciate the details here it would be appropriate to refer to the map in the file pub/maps/t3topo.ps on merit.edu.) With the advent of the RS960 card rollout, there has been some concern about the performance limits of nodes which have up to three RS960 T3 cards and at least one Hawthorne T3 card. One of the strategies proposed to avoid congestion on the Hawthorne- to-system-to-RS960 interaction is to bypass using links which terminate in this configuration by tuning the link metrics. Since there are multiple paths between any two pairs, it is important to evaluate the effect changing link metrics has on the network as a whole. Since the RS960 card deployment is staged in five phases, we approached the problem by identifying the interfaces where packets would have to traverse both flavors of cards and the system, in each of the four phases of the deployment. The next step was to identify within each phase interfaces which may be underutilized so that we could potentially adjust the metrics to divert traffic from more heavily loaded interfaces to the more lightly loaded interfaces. In phase one, both interfaces are lightly loaded, and it was felt that there was no danger of approaching the performance bottleneck threshold number of packets thru either interface. Therefore, the recommendation is to leave the link metrics unchanged for phase one. In phase two, it is obvious that the majority of the traffic from and to the west coast traverses two interfaces, CNSS8 to 16; and CNSS16 to 64. The objective was to reduce traffic through these two interfaces and to increase traffic through the interface at CNSS96 to 80. In evaluating the multiple paths from the east to the west coast (primarily between Hartford, San Francisco, and Los Angeles it appeared that we could achieve our objective by raising by two the link metrics on two links, 8 to 24 and 16 to 64. In order to test our hypothesis, we raised the link metrics on the links 8-24 and 16-64 from one to three on April 13, 1922 at approximately 16:15 GMT. It was immediately noticeable that traffic was diverted from 8-24 and 16-64 to 80-96. We left these metrics in place for approximately 20 hours. Using the xdview4 program that Bill Norton has written, we graphed the packets per second in and out of the various interfaces on the network. Comparisons of the sample period with the pre and post data samples, indicate that we accomplished our goal of reducing traffic through 8 and 16 and of increasing traffic through 96. In phase three, there will be one purely RS960 path from coast to coast. The objective for this phase was to eliminate multiple, lowest cost paths between Hartford and the west coast nodes of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Denver, and to make the RS960 path (48-32-40-24-8) the lowest cost path (according to link metrics) from coast to coast. After evaluating the multiple paths between Hartford-San Francisco, Hartford-Los Angeles, Hartford-Seattle, and Hartford-Denver, we thought that we could adjust the metrics across the network so that the lowest cost path was the purely RS960 path. This would require changing the metrics on six links. All link metrics on the network would be one, except for 8-24 which is 3, 16-64 which is 3, 96-80 which is 2, 24-80 which is 2, 32-56 which is 2, and 48-72 which is 4. Since this change would force all the east- west traffic onto five nodes, we were hesitant to test the hypothesis on the real network. However, since April 19 was a holiday weekend and the traffic load on the network was very light, we chose to adjust the metrics for a period of five and one half hours. The results of this test were as expected with one exception. I had made a mathematical error when calculating the paths to Denver from Seattle, so the lowest cost path between that pair did not traverse the RS960 path. There was a noticeable reduction of traffic through the following interfaces: 16 to 64, 72 to 48, and 48 to 72. Even 80 to 96 saw less traffic than when the metrics were configured as in phase two. Other observations were, that there appears to be an increase in traffic through interface 32 to 56. That might be attributed to the fact that the lowest link cost between Washington DC and Hartford was then via New York, not Greensboro; however, this may be offset by having two equal cost paths between Hartford and Greensboro. We have not yet completed our evaluation for phase four. The recommendation for phase one is that we leave the link metrics as they are currently; every T3 link is one. The conclusions that we draw for phase two from these experiments are that we can reduce the load on two of the hybrid boxes by diverting traffic to the third, lightly utilized hybrid. We recommend that prior to that phase that the link metrics be increased from one to three on two links: 8-24 and 16-64. As for phase three, significant gains can be made by diverting the majority of traffic to the RS960 path, but we recommend that we investigate further to see if we can eliminate the RS960-Hawthorne-RS960 path between Hartford and Denver. As we conclude our evaluation of phase four, we will publish these results also.
Mark, Thanks for the update. One thing that hasn't been clearly called out is the procedure for reporting on the progress of the rollout and the criteria that will be used for deciding whether all is well and the rollout should continue. When we last spoke, you said you were planning to make weekly status reports on how things were going. I think that's a very good idea. May I suggest that you send something out (Wednesdays?) that addresses the following points: - what changes were planned for the previous weekend - what changes actually were made on the previous weekend - what problems arose (if any) - what problems remain (if any) - what your plan is for the following weekend (the go/no-go question) This level of detail would enable us to help keep a watchful eye out for any operational problems and it would allow everyone some time to get feedback to you before the next set of upgrades. Possible? Thanks, Dan
Dan, This is a good idea. I will send out such a summary today and each Wednesday (approx.) for the duration of the RS/960 deployment. Mark
From: Dan Long <long@nic.near.net> To: mak@merit.edu CC: regional-techs@merit.edu, nearnet-tc@nic.near.net
Mark,
Thanks for the update. One thing that hasn't been clearly called out is the procedure for reporting on the progress of the rollout and the criteria that will be used for deciding whether all is well and the rollout should continue.
When we last spoke, you said you were planning to make weekly status reports on how things were going. I think that's a very good idea. May I suggest that you send something out (Wednesdays?) that addresses the following points:
- what changes were planned for the previous weekend - what changes actually were made on the previous weekend - what problems arose (if any) - what problems remain (if any) - what your plan is for the following weekend (the go/no-go question)
This level of detail would enable us to help keep a watchful eye out for any operational problems and it would allow everyone some time to get feedbac
k
to you before the next set of upgrades.
Possible?
Thanks, Dan
participants (2)
-
Dan Long
-
mak