160 likes | 289 Views
On the Aggregatability of Router Forwarding Tables. Author : Xin Zhao, Yaoqing Liu, Lan Wang and Beichuan Zhang Publisher: IEEE INFOCOM 2010 Presenter: Li-Hsien, Hsu Data: 9/28/2011. I. Introduction. Two types of tables used by routers:
E N D
On the Aggregatability of Router Forwarding Tables Author: Xin Zhao, Yaoqing Liu, Lan Wang and Beichuan Zhang Publisher: IEEE INFOCOM 2010 Presenter: Li-Hsien, Hsu Data: 9/28/2011
I. Introduction • Two types of tables used by routers: RIB(Routing Information Base) for routing FIB(Forwarding Information Base) for forwarding • FIB is derived from RIB. FIB usually uses high performance memory, which is more expensive and more difficult to scale. Therefore, their size is a more immediate concern to ISPs and vendors.
I. Introduction • Routing Scalability Problem • RIB growth => FIB growth • FIB growth: A high priority concern (From: bgp.potaroo.net)
FIB Aggregation(FA) • What is FA? Within one router, combines multiple RIB entries with the same next hop into one. • FA pros and cons • Purely local no change to routing protocol • No impact on packet forwarding • Compatible with other proposed routing scalability solution(IPv6) • But extra CPU processing time
Forwarding Correctness • Strong forwarding correctness • Longest match before/after aggregation ends up with the same for all prefixes • Weak forwarding correctness • Prefixes with Non-NULL nexthops, the same • Prefixes with NULL nexthops, might routable after aggregation • extra routable space
FIB Aggregation Techniques & Algorithm • Filled nodes are extra routable space introduced by the aggregation. • 4A, 4B.
Updates Handling • Full aggregation per update is costly • Significant computation overhead • Three approaches to handle routing changes to keep computation overhead low: • Operators choose an appropriate level of aggregation. • Incrementally update the aggregated FIB • Minimize computation, not the table size • Re-run full FIB aggregation periodically • The trigger can be a timer, a threshold on FIB size, and/or current router CPU load
Evaluation • Data Source • BGP routing tables and updates from RouteView Project • Evaluation Platform and implementation • Commodity PC, single thread process • Algorithms implemented in C without optimization
Table Size after FA • RouteViews Oregon tables on 2008.12.31 • Each level reduces FIB size more. • Level-1 30%~50%, Level-4 60%~90%
Table Size Over Time • Median of table size ratio, 2001~2008 • An overall slightly decreasing trend(, suggesting that the FIB has become more amenable to aggregation over the years.)
2006.10 2000.06 What does the ratio mean? • If Level-4 applied, router deployed in 2000 can still be used today
Computation Time • Computing time only takes tens to several hundreds milliseconds
Updates Process D D/7,254,478 C A A/B B B/C • Among all the updates, 2,914,020 of them cause changes to unaggregated FIB.
Periodical Re-Aggregation • With threshold 150,000, on average the FIB needs to be re-aggregated every 5 days
Conclusion • The table size can be reduced by 30-70%, which translates to 2-8 years extra router lifetime • The computation overhead is small and can be controlled by incremental update handling plus periodic re-aggregation.
Reference • www.cs.arizona.edu/~zhaox/slides/FIB-Aggregation-INFOCOM2010.ppt