International R&E network routing TEIN2 Inter-Domain Routing Guideline Ideas and Comments

1. International R&E network routing TEIN2 Inter-Domain Routing GuidelineIdeas and Comments Xing Li <2006-04-25>

2. Simple Case (where BGP can handle things easily) • Global transit • To tier 1 or tier 2 commodity networks • Care the aggregation • Care the load balancing • Don’t care the symmetry • Peering (no transit, except for the down streams) • To domestic ISPs (bi-literal or via IX) • Care the business model • To academic partners • Care the performance • Care the symmetry

3. Complicated Case (where BGP cannot handle things easily) • Global transit • To tier 1 or tier 2 commodity networks • Care the aggregation • Care the load balancing • Don’t care the symmetry • Academic transit • To multiple transit backbones within academic scope • Care the aggregation • Care the load balancing • Care the performance • Care the symmetry • Etc. • Peering (no transit, except for the down streams) • To domestic ISPs (bi-literal or via IX) • Care the business model • To academic partners • Care the performance • Care the symmetry

4. The Real World Routing

5. Possible Paths policy based routing and politics based routing

8. TEIN2 Routing Policy Overview • Goal • To provide a flexible and transparent routing policy to TEIN2 NRENs • Methods • Enable additive community tagging to mark the prefix announcements. • Adopt AS number prependingas the preferred BGP policy for TEIN2 traffic adjustment within TEIN2 backbone. • Use ingress AS number prepending for outbound traffic adjustment, including traffic from TEIN2 POP to NRENs, GÉANT and APAN. • Use egress AS number prepending for inbound traffic adjustment, including traffic from NRENs, GÉANT and APAN to TEIN2 POP. • May useLocal-Preference amendment as the last resort of mechanism for fine tuning on TEIN2 traffic over the backbone.

9. Communities (1)

10. Communities (2)

11. Communities (3)

12. Routing Policy between TEIN2 POP and NREN (non-transit network)

13. Routing Policy between TEIN2 POP and Transit Network

14. Two Steps to Implement the Policy • Identification • IP prefix • AS path regular expression • Community tag • Path selection • Length of the AS path (inbound and outbound) • Local-preference (outbound) • More specific (inbound)

15. Identification • IP prefix • Address database • Routing database • AS path regular expression • Routing database • BGP routing table • Community tag • IP prefix • AS path regular expression • Community tags • Router interface

16. Path Selection 0.More specific win 1. If the path specifies a next hop that is inaccessible, drop the update. 2. Prefer the path with the largest weight. 3.If the weights are the same, prefer the path with the largest local preference. 4. If the local preferences are the same, prefer the path that was originated by BGP running on this router. 5.If no route was originated, prefer the route that has the shortest AS_path. 6. If all paths have the same AS_path length, prefer the path with the lowest origin type (where IGP is lower than EGP, and EGP is lower than Incomplete). 7.If the origin codes are the same, prefer the path with the lowest MED attribute. 8. If the paths have the same MED, prefer the external path over the internal path. 9. If the paths are still the same, prefer the path through the closest IGP neighbor. 10. Prefer the path with the lowest IP address, as specified by the BGP router ID.”

17. Comments (1) • For identification, community is the preferred mechanism, AS-path and prefix filters can also be used. The community has the advantage of • Identifying by peering relationship • Grouping prefixes/AS-paths • Problems • Community exploring(AS-path regular expression) • Community mis-configuration

18. Comments (2) • AS-prepending as preferred method for path selection. The AS-path prepend has the advantage of • Facilitating the troubleshooting on routing problem (Local-pref is totally opaque to peers) • Problems • Endless prepending • Combine with • Take the Local-pref as last resort for routing adjustment

19. Tough Problem • Control the inbound traffic • More specific? • BGP TTL? • BGP scope?

20. Tools, Tools, Tools • Traceroute • Looking glass • Etc.

21. Database • Community definition • Whois • Routing

22. BGP Monitoring (TEIN2-NORTH)

23. The Idea of Matrix is Very Good

24. Possible Bypass Methods (in the Future) • MPLS services (Martini) • UCLP (L0/L1/L2/L3)

25. Case 1 Two weeks ago in KR It is not the CERNET – KR link It is not the CERNET – APAN – KR_JP link It is not the CERNET – TEIN2 link It is the CERNET – APAN – Abilene – KR links

26. C:\Documents and Settings\xing>tracert 202.112.0.56 Tracing route to ocean.net.edu.cn [202.112.0.56] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 19 ms 1 ms 2 ms 180-rtr.mm.internet2.edu [206.196.180.1] 2 9 ms 2 ms 2 ms abilene-rtr.maxgigapop.net [206.196.177.2] 3 14 ms 6 ms 6 ms nycmng-washng.abilene.ucaid.edu [198.32.8.84] 4 34 ms 26 ms 39 ms chinng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu [198.32.8.82] 5 28 ms 35 ms 36 ms 198.32.11.102 6 34 ms 27 ms 26 ms ae-0-157.br0.chi.us.rt.ascc.net [140.109.251.158] 7 243 ms 221 ms 597 ms 202.169.174.62 8 416 ms 409 ms 314 ms 202.169.174.45 9 545 ms * 507 ms 202.112.61.93 ! KOREN 10 * 355 ms * 202.112.53.17 11 408 ms * * 202.112.53.181 12 410 ms 407 ms 410 ms cd1.cernet.net [202.112.53.74] 13 491 ms * 500 ms 202.112.1.193 14 * 346 ms * ocean.net.edu.cn [202.112.0.56] 15 * 357 ms 409 ms ocean.net.edu.cn [202.112.0.56] Trace complete. C:\Documents and Settings\xing> traceroute 206.196.180.179 1 202.112.6.17 (202.112.6.17) 1.095 ms 0.183 ms 0.165 ms 2 * cd0.cernet.net (202.112.53.73) 1.348 ms 1.089 ms 3 202.112.53.190 (202.112.53.190) 0.277 ms 0.177 ms 0.163 ms 4 202.112.61.195 (202.112.61.195) 0.519 ms 0.559 ms 0.590 ms 5 202.112.61.30 (202.112.61.30) 0.809 ms 0.552 ms 0.599 ms 6 202.112.61.22 (202.112.61.22) 363.584 ms 164.103 ms 163.849 ms 7 * * 202.112.61.138 (202.112.61.138) 204.876 ms 8 * pass.bjnet.edu.cn (202.112.61.6) 212.191 ms * ! STARLIGHT 9 198.32.11.101 (198.32.11.101) 204.746 ms 214.373 ms 204.353 ms 10 nycmng-chinng.abilene.ucaid.edu (198.32.8.83) 225.701 ms 233.199 ms 225.343 ms 11 washng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu (198.32.8.85) 229.185 ms 228.285 ms 228.708 ms 12 * dcne-abilene-oc48.maxgigapop.net (206.196.177.1) 230.307 ms 232.123 ms 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * Case 2.1 (IPv4)

27. Microsoft Windows XP [版本 5.1.2600] (C) 版权所有 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:\Documents and Settings\xing>tracert6 2001:250:C000:20::2 Tracing route to 2001:250:c000:20::2 from 2001:468:c00:7:9d28:d329:479b:b356 over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 8 ms 8 ms 2001:468:c00:7:100::1 2 7 ms 8 ms 8 ms washng-max.abilene.ucaid.edu [2001:468:ff:184 c::1] 3 22 ms 12 ms 12 ms nycmng-washng.abilene.ucaid.edu [2001:468:ff:1518::1] 4 28 ms 32 ms 32 ms chinng-nycmng.abilene.ucaid.edu [2001:468:ff:f15::1] 5 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms iplsng-chinng.abilene.ucaid.edu [2001:468:ff:f12::2] 6 48 ms 43 ms 47 ms kscyng-iplsng.abilene.ucaid.edu [2001:468:ff:1213::2] 7 79 ms 56 ms 66 ms dnvrng-kscyng.abilene.ucaid.edu [2001:468:ff:1013::1] 8 81 ms 83 ms 81 ms snvang-dnvrng.abilene.ucaid.edu [2001:468:ff:1017::2] 9 354 ms 82 ms 90 ms 3ffe:80a::c 10 318 ms 257 ms 367 ms eth10-0-0.xr1.ams1.gblx.net [2001:7f8:1::a500:3549:1] 11 383 ms 407 ms 235 ms e0-0-0.6b2.AMS7.Alter.net [2001:7f8:1::a501:2702:1] 12 612 ms 636 ms 663 ms 2001:278:0:1000::11 JP telecoms 13 483 ms 509 ms * 2001:250:c000:20::2 14 682 ms 503 ms 524 ms 2001:250:c000:20::2 Trace complete. C:\Documents and Settings\xing> bj-bgw-r0k#trace 2001:468:c00:7:9d28:d329:479b:b356 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 2001:468:C00:7:9D28:D329:479B:B356 1 2001:250:C000:20::2 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 2001:250:0:3::1 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 3 2001:254:1:7::1 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec ! TEIN2 4 2001:254:1:3::2 40 msec 40 msec 40 msec 5 2001:254:1:4::2 76 msec 72 msec 72 msec 6 2001:254:8001:5::2 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 7 2001:220:1000:282::2 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec ! KOREN 8 2001:220:1000:42E::2 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 9 2001:220:1000:400::1 96 msec 92 msec 92 msec 10 2001:220:400:200::1 96 msec 96 msec 96 msec 11 2001:220:1800:200::1 96 msec 96 msec 96 msec 12 apii-juniper-ge0-1-0-1.jp.apan.net (3FFE:8140:101:1A::162) 128 msec 128 msec 128 msec! APAN 13 3FFE:8140:101::4 148 msec 160 msec 148 msec 14 tpr5-ge0-1-0-0.jp.apan.net (3FFE:8140:101:1E::5) 128 msec 128 msec 128 msec 15 transpac-la-tpr5.jp.apan.net (3FFE:8140:101:1::1) 244 msec 244 msec 256 msec 16 2001:504:B:20::131 244 msec 244 msec 244 msec 17 hstnng-losang.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:FF:1114::1) 280 msec 276 msec 276 msec ! ABILENE 18 atlang-hstnng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:FF:E11::1) 296 msec 316 msec 296 msec 19 washng-atlang.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:FF:118::2) 468 msec 468 msec 468 msec 20 max-washng.abilene.ucaid.edu (2001:468:FF:184C::2) 468 msec 468 msec 468 msec 21 * * * 22 * * * Case 2.2 (IPv6)

28. Case 3

29. Case 4

30. Case 5

31. Remarks • Assumptions • Transit and access networks are different • BGP peering is a dynamic environment • Basic solution • Prefer community as the identification scheme • Prefer AS-path prepend as the path selection scheme • Last resort and/or fine tone • AS-path expression as the identification scheme • Local-pref as the the path selection scheme • Analysis • Matrix analysis is helpful • Tools and collaborations • Traceroute, looking-glass, netflow • POC • Ad-hoc solution • “UCLP”

32. Suggestion • Is it possible to create a Research and Education Network Operator’s Group? • Mailing-list • Meeting