160 likes | 270 Vues
This research paper investigates the complexities associated with achieving stable convergence in interdomain routing protocols, particularly the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). Authored by experts from the University of Michigan, Yale, and the Hebrew University, it explores the implications of path-vector routing, routing policies, and potential oscillations caused by uncoordinated policies among Autonomous Systems (ASes). We present findings on conditions for stable convergence, the role of Gao-Rexford constraints, and challenges in scenarios with multiple stable solutions. These insights pave the way for future studies into BGP dynamics.
E N D
Searching for Stability in Interdomain Routing Rahul Sami (University of Michigan) Michael Schapira (Yale/UC Berkeley) Aviv Zohar (Hebrew University)
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Akamai Yahoo! AT&T Comcast • Path-vector routing • Routing between Autonomous Systems • ASes can apply routing policies
Convergence/Oscillation Uncoordinated policies can lead to persistent global route oscillations • [Varadhan, Govindan, Estrin] • [Griffin, Wilfong], [Griffin, Shepherd, Wilfong] • Several sufficient conditions for stable convergence [GR01, GGR01,GJR03,FJB05,..] • open question: can a network have two stable solutions, but no oscillation?
Our Results Two stable solutions imply potential BGP oscillations
Our Results • Two stable solutions imply potential BGP oscillations • If preferences satisfy Gao-Rexford constraints • Convergence of n AS network could require Ω(n) timein the wost case • with α-level hierarchy, BGP converges after at most 2α+2 “phases”
BGP model: Routes and Preferences route dest … Prefer AS27 Prefer shorter … AS1 AS3;AS1 AS1 AS27;AS3;AS1 AS1 AS8; AS4;AS1 AS2 AS4;AS2 • Atomic AS/ representative router • Router state: • Available routes to each destination • Route preference rules • Currently selected route • Abstract away export filters, MEDs, etc.
BGP model: Dynamics (for any one destination) j • Each AS i actions: • select best route from available routes • advertise current route to neighbor j • Evolution governed by sequence of action events • Arbitrary (adversarial) timing, with two restrictions: • Fair sequence (no starvation) • Messages not delayed in transit (though may be dropped/lost) i k
State-Transition Graphs * State: profile of all routers’ current routes and beliefs about their available routes Transition: change following route selection or advertisement
State-Transition Graphs * * Zero state State: profile of all routers’ current routes and beliefs about their available routes Transition: change following route selection or advertisement
State-Transition Graphs * * Zero state Stable state(s) State: profile of all routers’ current routes and beliefs about their available routes Transition: change following route selection or advertisement
Main Proof sketch: Regions * • Stable states: blue, red, … • Nonstable states: • blue if all paths lead to blue stable state • red if all paths lead to red stable state • purple otherwise
Proof Sketch: Confluence p a b b a ? a,b : different actions a • Key lemma: from any purple state p, there is a (fair) path to another purple state • Proof: • If all paths to red states, p would be red • cannot have paths to both blue and red state: • => must have path to some purple state p’
Main result: Summary If there are 2 or more stable states, zero state is purple From every purple state, fair path to another purple state Finite number of states=> must cycle sometime => BGP can oscillate on this instance!
Convergence Time • Gao-Rexford conditions • Assume: longest cust-prov chain length is α • Asynchronous model • “Phase”: each router triggered at least once • Result: reach stable solution in at most 2α+2 phases
Discussion & Future Work Main result applies to [GSW] and other models Average case instead of worst-case? Compositional theory for safe policies?
Thank you Questions?