1 / 44

Advanced Networks

Advanced Networks. 1. Delayed Internet Routing Convergence 2. The Impact of Internet Policy and Topology on Delayed Routing Convergence. The Problem. How to Recover from Failure Quickly? Phone systems recover, failover, in milliseconds Internet takes an order of minutes Loss of Connectivity

ovid
Download Presentation

Advanced Networks

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. Advanced Networks 1. Delayed Internet Routing Convergence 2. The Impact of Internet Policy and Topology on Delayed Routing Convergence

  2. The Problem • How to Recover from Failure Quickly? • Phone systems recover, failover, in milliseconds • Internet takes an order of minutes • Loss of Connectivity • Packet Loss • Latency

  3. The Problem (cont) • Failure over on the internet not very good • Sluggish Backup systems • Internet has to adjust to the failure • Path must be restored to back up

  4. The Questions • Why does convergence take so long? • What is the upper bound for convergence? • What causes this delayed convergence? • What can we do about it?

  5. Theory • Unexpected Interaction of: • Protocol timers • Router Implementation • Policies (Safe/Unsafe)

  6. Theory (cont) • Distance vector algorithm has issues • Lack of sufficient info to determine if next hop choice will cause loops

  7. Convergence Accelerators • Use of Path Vector • Split Horizon • Triggered updates • Diffusion • Timers

  8. Policies • Admins can implement unsafe policies • Policies can cause route oscillations • Routers default to Shortest Path • Even if constrained upper-bound might be as high factorial

  9. Point of Paper • Measure the convergence behavior of BGP 4 • Done for Bellman-Ford O(n3) • Convergence in BGP is NOT much better than RIP • Give an upper and lower bounds to convergence

  10. The Work Done • 2 year study • 250,000 routing fault injections • 25 Internet providers • End to End performance measurements

  11. Terminology • Tup: (New) Route Announcement • Tdown: Route Withdrawal • Tshort: Shorter Route Replaces Current • Current Route is Withdrawn Implicitly • Tlong: Shorter Route Replaced with longer one • Represents a failure and failover • Current Route is Withdrawn Implicitly

  12. Latency

  13. Latency (cont) • Oscillation greater than 3 minutes • 20% of Tlong • 40% of Tdown • Equivalence Latency Classes • Tlong,Tdown • Tshort,Tup

  14. Latency per ISP

  15. BGP Update Volume Average Message Per Event Type Tup: Route Announcement Tdown: Route Withdrawal Tshort: Shorter Route Replacement Tlong: Longer Route Replacement

  16. Questions • Why do Tlong and Tdown cause 2 times the amout of updates? • Why do certain ISP produce more updates per event? • Relationship between number of updates and convergence latency?

  17. Questions (cont) • What makes an ISP have a higher latency? • Interesting Points • ISP3: Japan’s National Backbone • ISP5 Canadian ISP • Latency NOT Dependant Geographic Distance or Network Distance (aka hop count)

  18. Graph Analysis • No relationship between day of the week and Latency! • Independent of Network load and congestion

  19. End to End Measurements • Route Oscillation effects performance • Drop Packets, Buffering of Packets • Out of order delivery

  20. Failover from end to end view • Time after ICMP echo arrived after Tup • Simulates a failover • 80% of test sites began returning after 30 seconds • 100% after one minute

  21. BGP Convergence Model • IBGP ignored • Full Mesh • Ignore ingress and egress filters • Exclude MinRouteAdver • Updates messages follow FIFO ordering

  22. BGP Convergence Example • Start: 0(*R, 1R, 2R) 1(0R, *R, 2R) 2(0R, 1R, *R) R Withdraws routes R -> 0 W R -> 1 W R -> 2 W

  23. 0(-, -, *2R) 1(-, -, *2R) 2(*01R, 10R, -) BGP Convergence Example 0(-, *1R, 2R) 1(*0R, -, 2R) 2(*0R, 1R, -) • 1 and 2 receive new announcement from 0 • 0 -> 1 01R (loop) • 0 -> 2 01R 0(-, *1R, 2R) 1(-, -, *2R) 2(01R, *1R, -) • 0 and 2 receive new announcement from 1 • 1 -> 0 10R (loop) • 1 -> 2 10R

  24. BGP Convergence Example 0 and 1 receive new announcement from 2 2 -> 0 20R 2 -> 1 20R 0(-, -, -) 1(-, -, *20R) 2(*01R, 10R, -) 0 and 2 receive new announcement from 1 1 -> 0 12R 1 -> 2 12R 0(-, *12R, -) 1(-, -, *20R) 2(*01R, -, -) … 48 steps later 0(-, -, -) 1(-, -, -) 2(-, -, -)

  25. Upper Bound • For n nodes there exist 0((n-1)!) distinct paths • When a route is withdrawn, a new route is found of equal or increasing length • Message count could be a bad as (n-1)O((n-1)!) until convergence • Not really possible on the internet

  26. Lower Bound • Made possible by MinRouteAdver timers • (n-1) Rounds to convergence

  27. MinRouteAdver • Minimum time between route advertisements • Gives a AS time to pick a good route before announcing it • In standard BGP, timer only applied to announcements • Does Not apply to explicit withdrawls

  28. Example Reloaded • Instead of 48 rounds only took 13 rounds

  29. Example Reloaded

  30. Question Reloaded • Why do Tup/Tshort converge quicker than Tdown/Tlong? • Answer: Tup/Tshort are decreasing while Tdown/Tlong are increasing • One a path is selected a longer one will not be picked • While on Tdown/Tlong you pick the next best one until you are out of choices • O(1) for Tup while O(n) for Tdown

  31. Question Reloaded • Why is there different latencies between the five ISPs? • Answer: The topological factors, length and number of possible paths (peering relationships, policies and agreements) are the answer. • Longer routes announced, longer latencies • Longer routes the more MinRouteAdver rounds

  32. Loop Detection • Loop Detection done at receiver side • If done, at sender you can get more out of MinRouteAdver round • MinRouteAdver is good but causes a 30 second delay in end to end communication at best

  33. Convergence Delay Due to Policies and Topology • 2nd study of convergence • 20 unique advertisement between 200 pairs of ISPs, 6 months • Measure the impact of Policies • Measure the impact of Topology • Analysis

  34. Multi-home Networks • One network, two ISPs • Better connectivity + backup • Failover = New route convergence • Work done in this Paper • Convergence Analysis of Tdown event

  35. Work Done • Fault injection announcements • Logged table snapshot to disk • Survey of backbone providers • Routing and peering policies • Used data to discuss impact on convergence

  36. Policy • How policy impacts number and length of ASPaths with a given route • Limited inbound acceptance by all ISP

  37. Inbound Filtering Example • ISP D filters peering session with ISPG • D only acceptG’s backbone and customers routes • ISP A filters peering session with D • A only acceptD’s backbone and customers routes • ISP A will accepts G’s routes by chaining

  38. Outbound Filters • A will advertise routes with paths “D G” and “D” but not “C D G” • Done by 13% of ISPs • Combinations of ASPath and prefix filters create unintentional back-up transit paths

  39. Topological Effect • Interaction of MinRouteAdver timers • MinRouteAdver is per peer not prefix • MinRouteAdver interference delays convergence

  40. Backup Path Selection

  41. Convergence Latency

  42. Convergence Latency (cont) • ISP1 explored one backup path of length 2 • ISP2 explored backup paths of length 2 and 3 • ISP 3 explored backup paths of length 5

  43. Convergence Latency (cont)

  44. Convergence Latency (cont)

More Related