1 / 44

ECE 4450:427/527 - Computer Networks Spring 2014

ECE 4450:427/527 - Computer Networks Spring 2014. Dr. Nghi Tran Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering. Lecture 6.3: Routing. Internetworking: Discussions. For Internetworking , we shall look at few sub-problems: Interconnect links of the same type : Switches

nysa
Télécharger la présentation

ECE 4450:427/527 - Computer Networks Spring 2014

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. ECE 4450:427/527 - Computer NetworksSpring 2014 Dr. Nghi Tran Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Lecture 6.3: Routing ECE 4450:427/527

  2. Internetworking: Discussions • For Internetworking, we shall look at few sub-problems: • Interconnect links of the same type: Switches • We consider an important of class switch: Bridges to interconnect Ethernet segments. • We also look a way to interconnect disparate networks and links: Gateways, or now mostly known as routers. We shall focus on the IP • Once we are able to interconnect a whole lot of links and networks with switches and routers, we will look at a way to find a suitable path, or route through a network: • Paths that are efficient, loop free, etc.: Routing ECE 4450:427/527

  3. Recall: IP Routing Table ECE 4450:427/527

  4. What is Routing? Construct directions from starting point to destination ECE 4450:427/527

  5. Forwarding vs Routing • Forwarding: data plane • Directing a data packet to an outgoing link • Individual router using a forwarding/routing table • Routing: control plane • Computing paths the packets will follow • Routers talking amongst themselves • Individual router creating a forwarding table • Routing can be simply understood as a process by which routing table is built 5 ECE 4450:427/527

  6. Why Does Routing Matter? • End-to-end performance • Quality of the path affects user performance • Propagation delay, throughput, and packet loss • Use of network resources • Balance of the traffic over the routers and links • Avoiding congestion by directing traffic to lightly-loaded links • Transient disruptions during changes • Failures, maintenance, and load balancing • Limiting packet loss and delay during changes ECE 4450:427/527

  7. Different Types of Routing • Routing in a GPS device • Routing in computer networks • Shortest path • Smallest delay • Highest reliability • Avoid congested nodes ECE 4450:427/527

  8. Routing • Network as a Graph • The basic problem of routing is to find the lowest-cost path between any two nodes • The cost of a path equals the sum of the costs of all the edges that make up the path • Cost: delay, financial cost, probability of failure, etc. ECE 4450:427/527

  9. Routing • For a simple network, we can calculate all shortest paths and load them into some nonvolatile storage on each node. • Such a static approach has several shortcomings • It does not deal with node or link failures • It does not consider the addition of new nodes or links • It implies that edge costs cannot change • What is the solution? • Need a distributed and dynamic protocol • Two main classes of protocols • Distance Vector • Link State ECE 4450:427/527

  10. Distance Vector: Algorithm • Construct a one-dimensional array (vector) of distances to all other nodes, with assumption that each node knows the cost of the link to each of its directly connected neighbors • Exchange info with immediate neighbors • Update distances based on received information • Stop sending updates as soon as no change occurs ECE 4450:427/527

  11. Distance Vector • Initial distances stored at each node (global view) (assume unit cost for each link) ECE 4450:427/527

  12. Distance Vector Initial routing table at node A, assume unit cost for each link Now, how about node B? ECE 4450:427/527

  13. Distance Vector: Local View (initial) ECE 4450:427/527

  14. Distance Vector – 1st Update for A 1st Update: Every node sends to its directly connected neighbors its personal list of distances 1st Update for A ECE 4450:427/527

  15. Distance Vector – 1st Update for B? 1st Update ECE 4450:427/527

  16. Distance Vector – 1st Update ECE 4450:427/527

  17. Distance Vector – 2nd Update ECE 4450:427/527

  18. Distance Vector: Global View Final distances stored at each node (global view) ECE 4450:427/527

  19. Distance Vector • The other common name for this class of algorithm is Bellman-Ford, after its inventors. • As we can see, it usually takes a number of exchanges/updates between neighbors before each node has complete routing table. • The process of getting consistent routing information to all nodes is called convergence: vary • Recall that we have two different circumstances under which a node decides to send a routing update • Periodic update • Triggered update ECE 4450:427/527

  20. Failure of Link F-G • When a node detects a link failure • F detects that link to G has failed (how?) • F sets distance to G to infinity and sends update to A • A sets distance to G to infinity since it uses F to reach G • A receives periodic update from C with 2-hop path to G • A sets distance to G to 3 and sends update to F • F decides it can reach G in 4 hops via A ECE 4450:427/527

  21. Failure of Link F-G: Updated Tables ECE 4450:427/527

  22. Drawback • Suppose the link from A to E goes down • In the next round of updates, A advertises a distance of infinity to E, but C advertise a distance of 2 to E • Depending on the exact timing of events, the following might happen • Node B, upon hearing that E can be reached in 2 hops from C, concludes that it can reach E in 3 hops and advertises this to A • Node A concludes it can reach E in 4 hops and advertises this to C • Node C concludes that it can reach E in 5 hops; and so on. • This cycle stops only when the distances reach some number that is large enough to be considered infinite • Count-to-infinity problem ECE 4450:427/527

  23. Solutions • One technique to improve the time to stabilize routing is called split horizon • When a node sends a routing update to its neighbors, it does not send those routes it learned from each neighbor back to that neighbor • For example, if B has the route (E, 2, A) in its table, then it knows it must have learned this route from A, and so whenever B sends a routing update to A, it does not include the route (E, 2) in that update • In a stronger version of split horizon, called split horizon with poison reverse • B actually sends that back route to A, but it puts negative information in the route to ensure that A will not eventually use B to get to E • For example, B sends the route (E, ∞) to A ECE 4450:427/527

  24. Routing Information Protocol (RIP) • Early routing protocol for IP networks • Distance-vector algorithm where vertices are networks and not hosts • Valid hop count (distances) 1-15, with 16 representing infinity • Limited to fairly small networks ECE 4450:427/527

  25. Metric/Cost in Real World • Can we just assign a cost of 1 to all links? • Certainly, there are so many ways to define cost: • Number of packets queued waiting to be transmitted • Consider both bandwidth and latency • In the current real world • Common approach: a constant/link bandwidth • It means metric changes rarely if at all and only under the control of network administrator • Why? • i) Dynamically changing metrics are too unstable; • ii) Many networks today lack the great disparity of speeds and latencies ECE 4450:427/527

  26. Distance Vector vs. Link-State • Distance vector: • each node talks only to its directly connected neighbors … • but it tell them everything it has learned, i.e., distance to all nodes • Link-state: • each nodetalks to all other nodes… • but it tells them only what it knows for sure, i.e., state of its directly connected links ECE 4450:427/527

  27. Link-State Routing Strategy: Send to all nodes (not just neighbors) information about directly connected links (not entire routing table) and associated cost. • Rely on two key mechanisms: • Reliable flooding: Make sure all nodes get the above information of other nodes • Route calculation: Once a node has a copy of the information from every other node, it is able to compute a complete map of the network, and then can decide the best route to each destination ECE 4450:427/527

  28. Reliable Flooding • Objective: Make sure all nodes get the link-state information of other nodes: Knowledge of directly connected neighbors and associated cost for each node • Each node creates an update packet called link-state packet (LSP) with the following information: • ID of the node that created LSP • Cost of link to each directly connected neighbor • Sequence number (SEQNO) • Time-to-live for this packet • Reliable flooding: Make sure all nodes get LSP from the other nodes. ECE 4450:427/527

  29. Reliable Flooding • Transmission of LSPs between adjacent routers using ACK and transmission. But how to send an LSP to all nodes? • We need some more steps to reliably flood an LSP to all nodes: controlled flooding • A node x receives a copy of LSP originated from y. • x then needs to check if it has already had a copy. If not, store it. If it has, compare sequence number, keep a newer one. • If the received LSP is new, x sends a copy of LSP to all neighbors, except the one from which LSP was received (why?). • Neighbors then turn around and do the same thing: most recent copy of LSP reaches all nodes. ECE 4450:427/527

  30. Reliable Flooding Reliable Flooding Flooding of link-state packets. (a) LSP arrives at node X; (b) X floods LSP to A and C; (c) A and C flood LSP to B (but not X); (d) flooding is complete ECE 4450:427/527

  31. Route Calculation • Now, assume a given node has copies of LSPs from every other node, how to decide/calculate the best route to each destination? • The solution is based on a well-known algorithm from graph theory – Dijkstra’s shortest-path algorithm ECE 4450:427/527

  32. Shortest-Path Problem: Statement • Given: network topology with link costs • c(x,y): link cost from node x to node y • Infinity if x and y are not direct neighbors • Compute: least-cost paths to all nodes • From a given source u to all other nodes • For each node a: ustores a’s predecessor nodealong path from u to a, & cost. 2 1 3 1 4 u a 2 1 5 4 3 ECE 4450:427/527

  33. Dijkstra’s Algorithm: Overview • Iterative algorithm for a given source node u: • After k iterations, know least-cost path to k nodes • S: set of nodes whose least-cost path known • Initially, S = {u} where u is the source node • Add one node to S in each iteration • D(a): current cost of path from source to node a • Initially, D(a) = c(u, a) for all nodes a adjacent to u • … and D(a) = ∞ for all other nodes a • Continuously update D(a) as shorter paths are learned ECE 4450:427/527

  34. Dijkstra’s Algorithm: Implementation 1 Initialization: 2 S = {u} 3 for all nodes {a} 4 If aadjacent to u { 5 D(a) = c(u,a) 6 else D(v) = ∞ 7 8 Loop 9 Find bnot in S with the smallest D(b) 10 Add bto S, store D(b) and P(b) (predecessor node) 11 update D(a) for all {a} adjacent to band not in S: 12 D(a) = min{D(a), D(b) + c(b,a)} 13 until all nodes in S ECE 4450:427/527

  35. Example 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 ECE 4450:427/527

  36. Example (Cont.) 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 ECE 4450:427/527

  37. Dijkstra’s Table ECE 4450:427/527

  38. Shortest-Path Tree 2 v y 1 3 1 4 x z u 2 v (u,v) 1 5 w (u,w) t w 4 3 x (u,w) s y (u,v) z (u,v) s (u,w) (u,w) t • Shortest-path tree from u • Routing table at u link ECE 4450:427/527

  39. Open Shortest First Path (OSPF) • It is the most widely used link-state routing protocols in practice • Open: Publicly available • SPF: Alternative name for link-state • OSPF adds a number of features to the basic link-state • Authentication: Make sure all nodes can be trusted • Additional hierarchy: Network domain divided further in to areas: a router might just need to get to a right area • Load balancing: Allow multiple routes to the same place to be assigned the same cost: traffic distributed evenly to those routers ECE 4450:427/527

  40. Distance Vector vs. Link-State • Distance vector: each node talks only to its directly connected neighbors, but it tell them everything it has learned, i.e., distance to all nodes • Link-state: each nodetalks to all other nodes, but it tells them only what it knows for sure, i.e., state of its directly connected links ECE 4450:427/527

  41. Distance Vector vs. Link-State • Who is the winner? Robustness: what happens if router malfunctions, misbehaves? LS: • node can advertise incorrect link cost • each node computes only its own table DV: • DV node can advertise incorrect path cost • each node’s table used by others , error propagate thru network Message complexity • LS: with n nodes, E links, O(nE) msgs sent . A lot of information needs to be stored. • DV: exchange between neighbors only Speed of Convergence • LS: O(n2) algorithm requires O(nE) msgs • DV: convergence time varies • may be routing loops • count-to-infinity problem ECE 4450:427/527

  42. Routing in the Internet • Routing protocols we have learned so far: idealization, all routers identical, flat network • Internet: Network of hundreds of thousands of networks: Not possible to directly using those protocols: they do not scale to those kinds of numbers!!! • We need something else!!! ECE 4450:427/527

  43. Routing in the Internet • Internet is organized as autonomous systems (AS) each of which is under the control of a single administrative entity • Autonomous System (AS) • corresponds to an administrative domain • examples: University, company, backbone network, as may the network of a single ISP • AS chooses its own routing protocol, e.g., distance-vector or link-state • Divide routing problem in two parts: • Intra-domain: We have already learned • Inter-domain: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) (BGP-v4) ECE 4450:427/527

  44. BGP • Few books dedicated to BGP • Key points: • Assumes the Internet is an arbitrarily interconnected set of AS‘s • Impossible to define optimal path • Advertise only reachability: complete paths as an enumerated lists of ASs to reach a particular network • Does not belong to either distance-vector or link-state • For further discussions (high points), see Chapter 4.1.2 ECE 4450:427/527

More Related