1 / 13

2-Phased Mapping for Internet Core/Edge Split Scheme

2-Phased Mapping for Internet Core/Edge Split Scheme. Wei Zhang Tsinghua University. Background. RRG Tasks. Next generation Internet routing architecture. Routing. Focuses:. Concerns:. Scalability problem. Hierarchical routing. Solutions:. Core/Edge split (LISP,eFIT,IVIP,SIX/ONE...).

anika-clemons
Télécharger la présentation

2-Phased Mapping for Internet Core/Edge Split Scheme

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. 2-Phased Mapping for Internet Core/Edge Split Scheme Wei Zhang Tsinghua University

  2. Background RRG Tasks Next generation Internet routing architecture Routing Focuses: Concerns: Scalability problem Hierarchical routing Solutions: Core/Edge split (LISP,eFIT,IVIP,SIX/ONE...) Proposals: Common necessity: Mapping from Edge/EID to Core/RLoc Where we are going !

  3. Motives • Mapping from EID to RLoc in core/edge schemes may not be scalable if the dynamics of (prefix,ETR) binding is high. • In order to make the routing system really scalable and reduce the overhead on updating, we need to design a relatively more stable mapping mechanism than any EID topology or routing policy changes.

  4. A 2-phased mapping model Phase I Phase II ETRs Prefixes AS# An M:1:M mapping model Introduce AS# in the middle can prevent too much detailed topology/policy changing information from getting into the mapping system.

  5. Assumptions • all ASes know better their local prefixes (in the IGP) than others. • ASes also know better their ETRs. • So all mapping information can be collected locally.

  6. Implements • Phase I mapping system (register/resolve prefix to AS#) Each AS should have at least one agent to register its local prefixes (range of IP addresses). May be hierarchical like DNS, or centralized like whois. • Phase II mapping (AS# to ETRs) XTRs advertise their AS# bindings with each other through BGP extension.

  7. Deployments • Core Phase I mapping servers Updated border routers (XTRs) • Edge Register agents

  8. Phase I Updating Internet Core Phase I mapping server AS1:1.1.0.0/16 AS2:2.2.0.0/16 Edge AS1 Edge AS2 Prefix register agent Prefix register agent 1.1.0.0/17 1.1.128.0/17 2.2.0.0/16

  9. Phase II Updating Internet Core BGP advertisement XTR3 XTR1 XTR2 AS1 has ETR1 AS2 has ETR2,ETR3 AS1 has ETR1 Edge AS1 Edge AS2 XTR=ITR/ETR

  10. Phase I Lookup Internet Core Phase I mapping server 2.2.2.2 in AS 2 Where is 2.2.2.2 AS1:ITR1 AS2:ETR3 AS2:ETR2 Edge AS1 Edge AS2 Host A 2.2.2.2

  11. Phase II Lookup Internet Core Tunnel packets to ETR2 ITR1 will Check which ETR is the closest to AS2 AS2:ETR3 AS2:ETR2 Edge AS1 Edge AS2 Host A 2.2.2.2

  12. Gains • Any prefixes reconfiguration (aggregation/ deaggregation) within an AS will not be notified to mapping system. • Possible highly efficient aggregation of the local prefixes (a range of IP space). • Both phase I and phase II mapping can be stable. • A stable mapping system will reduce the update overhead introduced by topology change/routing policy dynamics.

  13. Summary • The 2-phased mapping scheme introduces AS# between the mapping prefixes and ETRs. • The decoupling of direct mapping makes highly dynamic updates stable, therefore it can be more scalable than any direct mapping designs. • The 2-phased mapping scheme is adaptable to any core/edge split proposals.

More Related