1 / 32

Internet Routing (COS 598A) Today: Topology Size

Internet Routing (COS 598A) Today: Topology Size. Jennifer Rexford http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/teaching/spring2005 Tuesdays/Thursdays 11:00am-12:20pm. Outline. BGP distribution inside an AS Full-mesh iBGP Route reflectors Routing anomalies caused by route reflectors

magdalene
Download Presentation

Internet Routing (COS 598A) Today: Topology Size

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. Internet Routing (COS 598A)Today: Topology Size Jennifer Rexford http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/teaching/spring2005 Tuesdays/Thursdays 11:00am-12:20pm

  2. Outline • BGP distribution inside an AS • Full-mesh iBGP • Route reflectors • Routing anomalies caused by route reflectors • Pros and cons of proposed solutions • IGP topology • OSPF areas • Summarization • Multiple ASes

  3. r2 r3 r1 r4 r2 r4 r1 Routers Running eBGP, iBGP, and IGP destination AS A AS B Legend eBGP session iBGP session IGP link 2 2 1 4 Route r1 has closest egress point

  4. Roles of eBGP, iBGP, and IGP • eBGP: External BGP • Learn routes from neighboring ASes • Advertise routes to neighboring ASes • iBGP: Internal BGP • Disseminate BGP information within the AS • IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol • Compute shortest paths between routers in AS • Identify closest egress point in BGP path selection

  5. Full Mesh iBGP Configuration • Internal BGP session • Forward best BGP route to a neighbor • Do not send from one iBGP neighbor to another • Full-mesh configuration • iBGP session between each pair of routers • Ensures complete visibility of BGP routes

  6. Why Do Point-to-Point Internal BGP? • Reusing the BGP protocol • iBGP is really just BGP • … except you don’t add an AS to the AS path • … or export routes between iBGP neighbors • No need to create a second protocol • Another protocol would add complexity • And, full-mesh is workable for many networks • Well, until they get too big…

  7. Scalability Limits of Full Mesh on the Routers • Number of iBGP sessions • TCP connection to every other router • Bandwidth for update messages • Every BGP update sent to every other router • Storage for the BGP routing table • Storing many BGP routes per destination prefix • Configuration changes when adding a router • Configuring iBGP session on every other router

  8. Route Reflectors • Relax the iBGP propagation rule • Allow sending updates between iBGP neighbors • Route reflector • Receives iBGP updates from neighbors • Send a single BGP route to the clients • Very much like provider, peer, and customer • To client: send all BGP routes • To peer route reflector: send client-learned routes • To route reflector: send all client-learned routes

  9. r1 r2 r3 r4 r1 r2 r4 Example: Single Route Reflector 2 1 2 4 r2 Router only learns about r2

  10. The Problem About Route Reflectors • Advantage: scalability • Fewer iBGP sessions • Lower bandwidth for update messages • Smaller BGP routing tables • Lower configuration overhead • Disadvantage: changes the answers • Clients only learn a subset of the BGP routes • Does not result is same choices as a full mesh • ... especially if RR sees different IGP distances

  11. Routing Anomaly: Forwarding Loop r1 r2 1 1 r1 r2 1 Picks r2 Picks r1 Packet deflected toward other egress point, causing a loop

  12. r2 r3 r1 Routing Anomaly: Protocol Oscillation 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 RR1 prefers r2 over r1 RR2 prefers r3 over r2 RR3 prefers r1 over r3

  13. Avoiding Routing Anomalies • Reduce impact of route reflectors • Ensure route reflector is close to its clients • … so the RR makes consistent decisions • Sufficient conditions for ensuring consistency • RR preferring routes through clients over “peers” • BGP messages should traverse same path as data • Forces a high degree of replication • Many route reflectors in the network • E.g., a route reflector per PoP for correctness • E.g. have a second RR per PoP for reliability • http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigcomm/sigcomm2002/papers/ibgp.pdf

  14. r1 r2 r3 r4 r1 r2 r4 Possible Solution: Disseminating More Routes • Make route reflectors more verbose • Send all BGP routes to clients, not just best route • Send all equally-good BGP routes (up to IGP cost) • Advantages • Client routers have improved visibility • Make the same decisions as in a full mesh • Disadvantages • Higher overhead for sending and storing routes • Requires protocol changes to send multiple routes • Not backwards compatible with legacy routers 1 2 2 4 r1, r2, r4 http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigcomm/sigcomm2002/papers/bgposci.pdf

  15. r1 r2 r3 r4 r1 r2 r4 Possible Solution: Customized Dissemination • Make route reflector more intelligent • Send customized BGP route to each client • Tell each client what he would pick himself • Advantages • Make the same decisions as in a full mesh • Remain compatible with legacy routers • Disadvantages • Intelligent RR must make decisions per client • … and select closest egress from each viewpoint 1 2 2 4 r1 http://www.rnp.br/ietf/internet-drafts/draft-bonaventure-bgp-route-reflectors-00.txt http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/rcp-nsdi.pdf

  16. Possible Solution: Multicast/Flooding • Replace point-to-point distribution • Apply a multicast protocol to distribute messages • Or, flood the BGP messages to all routers • Advantages • Complete distribution without route reflectors • Avoids configuration overhead of a full mesh • Disadvantages • Requires an additional, new protocol • Not backwards-compatible with legacy routers • Large BGP routing tables, like in a full mesh http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/van.pdf

  17. r1 r2 1 1 r1 r2 tunnel tunnel 1 Possible Solution: Tunnel Between Edge Routers • Tunneling through the core • Ingress router selects ingress point • Other routers blindly forward to the egress • Advantages • No risk of forwarding loops • No BGP running on interior routers • Disadvantages • Overhead of tunneling protocol/technology • Still has a risk of protocol oscillations

  18. State-of-the-Art of BGP Distribution in an AS • When full-mesh doesn’t scale • Hierarchical route-reflector configuration • One or two route reflectors per PoP • Some networks use “confederations” (mini ASes) • Recent ideas • Sufficient conditions to avoid anomalies • Enhanced RRs sending multiple or custom routes • Flooding/multicast of BGP updates • Tunneling to avoid packet deflections • Open questions • Are the sufficient conditions too restrictive? • Good comparison of the various approaches

  19. IGP Topology

  20. Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) • Protocol overhead depends on the topology • Bandwidth: flooding of link state advertisements • Memory: storing the link-state database • Processing: computing the shortest paths 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 5 4 3

  21. Improving the Scaling • Dijkstra’s shortest-path algorithm • Simplest version: O(N2), where N is # of nodes • Better algorithms: O(L*log(N)), where Lis # links • Incremental algorithms: great for small changes • Timers to pace operations • Minimum time between LSAs for the same link • Minimum time between path computations • More resources on the routers • Routers with more CPU and memory

  22. Area 1 Area 2 cost 3 2 Area 0 1 3 1 To area 0 area border router 3 2 1 5 cost 8 Area 4 Area 3 4 3 Introducing Hierarchy: OSPF Areas • Divide network into regions • Backbone (area 0) and non-backbone areas • Each area has its own link-state database • Advertise only path distances at area boundaries

  23. Summarization at Area Boundaries • Areas only help so much • Advertising path costs to reach each component • Single link failure may change multiple path costs • Summarization: LSA for multiple components • LSA for an IP prefix containing the addresses • LSA carries cost for the maximum path cost 2 1 3 1 To area 0 3 2 1 5 cost 8 4 3

  24. Group related routers E.g., in a Point-of-Presence Assign to single OSPF area Put inter-PoP links in area 0 Enable summarization Select an address block for the equipment in the area Assign IP addresses in the block to router CPUs and interfaces Assigning OSPF Areas Inter-PoP Intra-PoP Other networks

  25. Pros and Cons of Summarization • Advantages: scalability • Reduce the size of the link-state database • One entry per summary prefix • Isolate the rest of the network from changes • Only advertise when max path cost changes • Disadvantages • Complexity • Extra configuration details for areas & summarization • Requires tight coupling with IP address assignment • Inefficiency • Summarization hides details that affect path selection • Data packets may traverse a less-attractive path

  26. Dividing into Multiple ASes • Divide the network into regions • Separate instance of IGP per region • Interdomain routing between regions • Loss of visibility into differences within region 50 50 100 100 50 100 20 20 20 20 20 20 100 100 100 50 50 50 North America Europe Asia

  27. Multi-AS Networks, Not Just for Scalability • Administrative reasons • Separate networks per geographic region • Mergers/acquisitions that combine networks • Why not merge to single AS? • Using different intradomain protocols • Managed by different people • Fear of encountering scalability problems • Fear of losing the benefits of isolation • Why merge to a single AS? • Simpler configuration • More efficient routing • Avoid having separate AS hop in BGP AS paths

  28. Which Approach is Better? • Ideal: flat IGP network • Single AS • Single IGP instance, no areas • Hierarchical IGP • Single AS • Single IGP instance, using areas & summarization • Multiple ASes • Multiple ASes • Separate IGP instances • Some other approach???

  29. Comparison Metrics • Scalability • Protocol overhead • Storing and flooding link-state advertisements • Overhead of Dijkstra shortest-path computation • Effects of topology changes • Number of advertisements after a change • Likelihood a change must be propagated • Efficiency • Stretch: comparing path lengths • In ideal flat intradomain routing • In alternative scheme • How much longer do the paths get?

  30. Interesting Research Questions • Routing protocols that achieve small stretch • Theory work on algorithms to minimize stretch • Protocol work on hierarchy and aggregation • Any new distributed protocols with low stretch? • Avoid sharp boundaries between areas/ASes? • Identifying good places to hide information • Given a network graph with link weights • Decide where to put area and AS boundaries • … with the goal of minimizing stretch • … within some max size of each area or AS

  31. Conclusion • Networks are getting bigger • Growth of a network topology • Merger/acquisition of other networks • Techniques for scaling the routing design • BGP route reflection • OSPF areas • Multiple BGP ASes • Relatively open research area • Rich theoretical tradition on compact routing • Common operational practices for protocol scaling • Not much work has been done in between

  32. Next Time: Router Configuration • Two papers • “Automated provisioning of BGP customers” (just sections 1-3) • “Detecting BGP faults with static analysis” • Review only of second paper • Summary • Why accept • Why reject • Future work • Optional • Short survey on BGP routing policies for ISPs • NANOG video covering material in second paper

More Related