1 / 44

Putting BGP on the Right Path: A Case for Next-Hop Routing

Putting BGP on the Right Path: A Case for Next-Hop Routing. Michael Schapira Joint work with Yaping Zhu and Jennifer Rexford (Princeton University). Once Upon a Time… Internet Inter-Network Routing:. Small network Single administrative entity NSFNET Shortest-path routing

maxwell-dickerson
Download Presentation

Putting BGP on the Right Path: A Case for Next-Hop Routing

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. Putting BGP on the Right Path: A Case for Next-Hop Routing Michael Schapira Joint work with Yaping Zhu and Jennifer Rexford (Princeton University)

  2. Once Upon a Time… Internet Inter-Network Routing: • Small network • Single administrative entity • NSFNET • Shortest-path routing • distance-vector routing • Then....

  3. Interdomain Routing Over 35,000 Autonomous Systems (ASes) Interdomain routing = routing between ASes • Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Sprint AT&T Comcast Qwest

  4. Today’s Path-Based Routing With BGP • Complex! • configuration errors, software bugs, … • Bad convergence! • persistent route oscillations, slow convergence, … • Vulnerable to attacks! • malicious, economically-driven, inadvertent, … • and more, and more, and more … • bad performance, clumsy traffic engineering, …

  5. How Can We FixInterdomain Routing? • One approach: add mechanisms to an already complex protocol • route flap damping, S-BGP, … • Another approach: redesign interdomain routing from scratch • HLP, NIRA, pathlet routing, consensus routing, … • Our approach: simplify BGP!

  6. Background: Today’s Path-Based Routing With BGP Choosesingle “best”route (ranking) Send route updates to neighbors (export policy) Receive route updates from neighbors • AS i’srouting policy: • ranking of simple routes from i to each destination d • export policy • BGP is apath-vector protocol

  7. Background: Today’s Path-Based Routing With BGP 3, I’m using 1d 32d > 31d 1 1, 2, I’m available 3 d 2 Don’t export 2d to 3 a stable state is reached

  8. AS-PATH = the Route of All Evil • AS-PATH: list of allASes on path • originally meant for loop-detection • The AS-PATH is to blame! • error-prone, software bugs • no/slow convergence • large attack surface • bad scalability, clumsy traffic engineering, bad performance, …

  9. Getting Off the AS-PATH • No way back to shortest-path routing… • Our proposal: next-hop routing • make routing decisions based solely on the “next hop” • relegate the AS-PATH to its original role

  10. Wish List • Loop freedom • Fast Convergence • Security • Incentive compatibility • Business policies • Good performance • Traffic engineering • Scalability • Simplicity

  11. Expressiveness vs. Complexity complexity BGP’spath-basedrouting too complex shortest-pathrouting next-hoprouting simple expressiveness sufficientlyexpressive not expressiveenough extremelyexpressive

  12. Next-Hop Routing Rules! • Rule 1: use next-hop rankings 541d > 53d > 542d 4 > 3 1 4 d 5 2 3

  13. Next-Hop Routing Rules! • Rule 1: use next-hop rankings • Rule 2: prioritize current route • to minimize path exploration[Godfrey-Caesar-Hagen-Singer-Shenker] 2=3 Prioritize current route 2=3 Break ties in favor of lower AS number 2 d 1 3

  14. Next-Hop Routing Rules! • Rule 1: use next-hop rankings • Rule 2: prioritize current route • Rule 3: consistently export • to avoid disconnecting upstream nodes[Feigenbaum-S-Ramachandran] 1 > 2, Export 32d, but not 31d, to 4 1 > 2, Export 31dto 4 1 d 4 3 2

  15. Next-Hop Routing Rules! • Rule 1: use next-hop rankings • Rule 2: prioritize current route • Rule 3: consistently export • Defn: Node iconsistently exports w.r.t. neighbor j if there is some route Rs.t. each route Q is exportable to j iffR ≤iQ. • Defn: Node iconsistently exports if it consistently exports with respect to each neighboring node j.

  16. Next-Hop Routing Rules! • Rule 1: use next-hop rankings • Rule 2: prioritize current route • Rule 3: consistently export • 3 deployment schemes • Configure today’s routers • Create new router configuration interface • Build new router software

  17. Wish List Revisited • Loop freedom • Fast convergence • Security • Incentive compatibility • Business policies • Good performance • Traffic engineering • Scalability • Simplicity

  18. Wish List Revisited • Loop freedom • Fast convergence? • Security • Incentive compatibility [Feigenbaum-S-Ramachandran] • Business policies • Good performance • Traffic engineering • Scalability? • Simplicity

  19. Existence of Stable State • Existence of stable state not guaranteed even with next-hop rankings (Rule 1) [Feamster-Johari-Balakrishnan] • Thm: If the next-hop routing rules hold, then a stable state exists in the network. • What about (fast!) convergence?

  20. BGP Oscillations BGP not guaranteed to converge even with next-hop routing! [Griffin-Shepherd-Wilfong] 1 2 2 > d 1 > d d

  21. The Commercial Internet • ASes sign long-term contracts. • Neighboring pairs of ASes have: • a customer-provider relationship • a peering relationship peer providers peer customers

  22. Gao-Rexford Framework • 3 simple conditions that are naturally induced by the AS-business-hierarchy. • Topology condition, Preference condition, Export condition • If the Gao-Rexford conditions hold, then BGP is guaranteed to converge to a stable state. [Gao-Rexford] • But, this might require exponentially-many forwarding changes! [Syed-Rexford]

  23. Fast BGP Convergence • Thm: In the Gao-Rexford framework, next-hop routing convergence to a stable state involves at most O(L2) forwarding changes(L = # links). • all network topologies • all timings of AS activations and update message arrivals • all initial routing states • all initial “beliefs” • implications for routing changes and number of BGP updates

  24. Simulations • C-BGP simulator. Cyclops AS-level topology, Jan 1st 2010(33,976 ASes, ~5000 non-stubs) • Protocols:BGP, Prefer Recent Route (PRR), next-hop routing • Metrics:# forwarding changes, # routing changes,# updates, AS-PATH length • Events:prefix up, link failure, link recovery • Methodology: 500 experiments, 10,000 vantage points (all non-stubs, 5000 stubs)

  25. Simulation Results(# Forwarding Changes) maximum number of routing changes in next-hop routing = 3 maximum number of forwarding changesin PRR = 10 maximum number of BGP forwarding changes > 20

  26. Simulation Results(# Routing Changes) maximum number of routing changes in next-hop routing < 20 maximum number of BGP routing changes > 160 maximum number of routing changesin PRR > 40

  27. Simulation Results(# BGP Updates, Non-Stub ASes) maximum number of updates in next-hop routing < 300 maximum number of updates in PRR > 1000 maximum number of BGP updates > 6000

  28. Simulation Results(# Routing Changes, The 0.1% Position)

  29. Incentive Compatible Routing Configurations 3 > d > 1 2 2 d > 2 3 1 d Each node is getting its best feasible next-hop

  30. Next-Hop Routing isIncentive Compatible • Thm [Feigenbaum-Ramachandran-S]: In the Gao-Rexford framework, next-hop routing is incentive compatible. (each node is guaranteed its bestfeasible next-hop)

  31. Wish List Revisited • Loop freedom • Fast convergence • Security? • Incentive compatibility • Business policies • Good performance? • Traffic engineering? • Scalability • Simplicity

  32. Limitations of Next-Hop Routing • AS-PATH length • AS-avoiding policies • AS-name prepending • AS-PATH-based traffic engineering

  33. Security, Performance,Traffic Engineering • Still open research questions. • Handled mostly outside the routing protocol. • We argue that next-hop routing makes things mostly better.

  34. Performance • Faster/better convergence than BGP. • much more scalable. • But…potential increase in path lengths. • b • loosely correlated with performance (# routers, physical distance… throughput…). • still, significant increase clearly undesirable! • Simulation results: same path length for 97-99% of ASes; big increase only for ~0.1%.

  35. Security • Reduces BGP’s attack surface (AS-PATH length plays no role in routing decisions). • More resilient to economically-driven attacks (incentive compatible). • More resilient to misconfigurations(in progress) • But… AS-avoiding policies impossible. • come with no guarantees. e2e?

  36. Traffic Engineering • We discuss how traffic engineering can be done without relying on the AS-PATH. • using different next-hop rankings for different (groups of) prefixes • using the BGP communities attribute • …

  37. Multipath Routing • Performance, security and traffic engineering can greatly benefit from multipath routing. • multiple working paths • immediate response to failures • load balancing among multiple next-hops • … • Next-hop routing lowers the barrier for making this a reality (work in progress).

  38. Multipath Routing • Exploiting path diversity to • realize the AS’s own objectives • customize route selection for neighboringASes • But... multipath routing is not scalable! • disseminate and store multiple routes

  39. Multipath Routing is Not Scalable! I’m using P1 and P2 1 P1 I’m using P1, P2, Q1 and Q2 P2 d 4 3 Q1 I’m using Q1 and Q2 2 Q2

  40. From AS-PATH to AS-SET • Next-hop routing is more amenable to multipath • nodes don’t care about entire paths • … other than for loop detection • Don’t announce routes, announce sets! • set = union of ASes on all routes • BGP route aggregation

  41. Neighbor-SpecificNext-Hop Routing • Customizing route selection for neighbors • operational motivation [Kushman-Kandula-Katabi-Maggs] • economic motivation [Wang-S-Rexford] Secure! R1 C1 ? Short! R2 C2 z d Cheap! R3 C3

  42. Neighbor-SpecificNext-Hop Routing • Neighbor-Specific BGP[Wang-S-Rexford] • implementable using existing tools • Results for convergence and incentive compatibility extend to multipath!

  43. Conclusions andFuture Research • BGP is far too complicated! • New approach: simplify BGP • without compromising global and local goals! • Directions for future research: • getting rid of the AS-PATH? • software / configuration complexity • more theoretical and experimental work

  44. Thank You

More Related