1 / 17

S ufficient C onditions to G uarantee P ath V isibility

S ufficient C onditions to G uarantee P ath V isibility. Akeel ur Rehman Faridee 2005-03-0021. The Internet (General Picture). End-hosts. Routers. The Internet (Original Picture). Internet is actually divided into different Autonomous Systems

tilden
Télécharger la présentation

S ufficient C onditions to G uarantee P ath V isibility

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. Sufficient Conditions to Guarantee Path Visibility Akeel ur Rehman Faridee 2005-03-0021

  2. The Internet (General Picture) End-hosts Routers

  3. The Internet (Original Picture) Internet is actually divided into different Autonomous Systems (AS’s), governed by different organization entities. End-hosts

  4. Autonomous Systems (ASes) Economically independent All must cooperate to ensure reachability Each AS is assigned an autonomous number (ASN) Interdomain routing is concerned with determining paths b/w AS’s RFC 1930: Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System An autonomous system is a region of the Internet that is administered by a single entity and that has a unified routing policy

  5. Interdomain vs Intradomain • Intradomain routing • Routing is done based on metrics • Routing domain is one autonomous system • Interdomain routing • Routing is done based on policies • Routing domain is the entire Internet

  6. What Problem is BGP Solving? Underlying problem Distributed means of computing a solution. Shortest Paths RIP, OSPF, IS-IS X? BGP Reachability Information

  7. BGP Prefixesreachable from AS 1 Prefixesreachablefrom AS 3

  8. Two Flavors of BGP iBGP eBGP • External BGP (eBGP): exchanging routes between ASes • Internal BGP (iBGP): disseminating routes to external destinations among the routers within an AS

  9. Two flavors? • Most ASes have more than one “border” router that talks to other peers • Must disseminate information inside the AS and through the AS. • Must have complete visibility. • COMPLETE VISIBILITY: • For every external destination, each router picks the same route that it would have picked had it seen the best routes from each eBGP router in the AS.

  10. iBGP iBGP sessions run on TCP. Overlay over intra-domain routing protocol. Routing messages and data packets forwarded via IGP within AS. Routes from iBGP session not propagated to another iBGP session. Originally FULL MESH – All routers see all routes – causing scaling problems Route Reflectors and Confederations are the solution.

  11. iBGP Mesh Does Not Scale iBGP updates eBGP update • N border routers means N(N-1)/2 peering sessions • Each router must have N-1 iBGP sessions configured • Size of iBGP routing table can be order N larger than number of best routes (remember alternate routes!) • Each router has to listen to update noise from each neighbor

  12. Problems with Route Reflectors Single point of failure – can be fixed easily All clients take same path – compromises complete visibility Some configurations may provide complete visibilityBUT not all ! Lack of complete visibility:every router is not guaranteed to see its best available route.

  13. Route Reflectors RR • Route reflectors can pass on iBGP updates to clients • Each RR passes along ONLY best routes • ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST attributes are needed to avoid loops RR RR

  14. BGP Blackhole A missing iBGP session can create network partition even the underlying IP topology is connected. A missing iBGP session might keep one router from receiving route information for some prefixes, making it a blackhole for that prefix. Knowing the sufficient conditions to gaurantee the VISIBILITY of all available path to prevent the blackhole, both in case of partitions and common case, is of greater interset. Blackhole: A router that drops all the packets of a particular prefix (because it doesn’t have the reachability information for this prefix) is called the black hole for this prefix.

  15. Selected BGP RFCs http://www.ietf.org Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) • IDR : http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html • RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) • RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet • RFC 1773 Experience with the BGP-4 protocol • RFC 1774 BGP-4 Protocol Analysis • RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP • RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP

  16. Acknowledgements Some of the slides/figures are taken from Hari Balakrishnan and Nick Feamster website.

  17. References [1] Hari Balakrishnan, 2001-2005, and Nick Feamster, Chapter 4: Interdomain Internet Routing, 2005, http://nms.csail.mit.edu/6.829-f05/lectures/L4-routing.pdf [2] M Vutukuru, P Valiant, S Kopparty, Hari Balakrishnan How to Construct a correct and Scalable iBGP Confuguration, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 2006 [3] T. Bates, R. Chandra, and E. H. Chen. BGP Route Reflection – An Alternative to Full Mesh iBGP, April 2000 [4] Timothy Griffin and Gordon T. Wilfong. On the Correctness of iBGP Configuration. In Proc. ACM SIGCOM, pages 17-29, Pittsburgh, PA, August 2002 [5] FEAMSTER, N., AND BALAKRISHNAN, H. Verifying the correctness of wide- area Internet routing. Tech. Rep. MIT-LCS-TR-948, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., May 2004 [6] Nick Feamster, Jared Winick, and Jennifer Rexford. A Model of BGP Routing for Network Engineering. In ACM Sigmetrics - Performance 2004, New York, NY, June 2004.

More Related