1 / 6

Enabling inter-domain path diversity Based on work presented in [1][2]

Enabling inter-domain path diversity Based on work presented in [1][2]. Xavier Misseri, TELECOM ParisTech , France Damien Saucez , INRIA, France Ivan Gojmerac , FTW, Austria Jean-Louis Rougier , TELECOM ParisTech , France.

freya-bullock
Download Presentation

Enabling inter-domain path diversity Based on work presented in [1][2]

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Enablinginter-domainpathdiversityBased on workpresented in [1][2] Xavier Misseri, TELECOM ParisTech, France Damien Saucez, INRIA, France Ivan Gojmerac, FTW, Austria Jean-Louis Rougier, TELECOM ParisTech, France • [1] X. Misseri, J.-L. Rougier, and D. Saucez, “Internet routingdiversity for stub networks with a Map-and-Encapscheme,” in ICC, 2012, p. 6. • [2] X. Misseri, I. Gojmerac, and J. Rougier, “Inter-Domain Route Diversity for the Internet,” in Networking ETICS Workshop, 2012, p. 8.

  2. destination Architecture • BGP only selects one route • BGP selection process is tweakable but complex selection of routes is difficult Mappingdatabase BGP best route LP: 100 • Mapping request/answer Autonomous system AS AS R1 AS AS LP: 80 AS LP: 80

  3. destination Architecture • Our proposal: select the domain exit to benefit from external diversity: • Path enforcement via encapsulation (bypass default route) • Path diversity management via a Mapping System • LISP[1] can help us and is implemented in some routers [1] Lewis, D., Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D.: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), IETF Internet Draft (January 2012) Mappingdatabase BGP best route LP: 100 • Mapping request/answer Autonomous system AS AS R1 AS AS LP: 80 AS LP: 80

  4. Use case and benefits • Centralization of path diversity • Fed by BGP • Advanced route selection (e.g. stability, disjointness…) • Propagation of path diversity between Data Bases • Different sets of routes can be sent to different clients • Incremental and local deployment • No synchronization with your neighbor is needed • Based on LISP (IETF draft implemented in some routers) -> existing technology • Stub-ISP cooperation • Choose the exit of the ISP • Needs cooperation with the provider • Diversity depends on the number of your neighbors

  5. Nextsteps • Implementation: • BGP to Mapping System route redistribution • Adaptation of LISP protocol • Generalisation to every domains (ongoing) • Internet Wide multipath architecture • Path diversity shared to transit neighbors

  6. Feedback-Questions • We are veryinterested in gettingyour feedback • Now or after the talk  • Interesting ? We are interested in having better idea of: • typical use cases • deployment scenarios... • We are building a running implementation and want to build testbeds. • Are you interested in participating ? • Perhaps you are already testing LISP. Do you have feedback ? • Do you see deployment issues ? • Thankyou for your attention 

More Related