DOCSLIB.ORG

10: Inter and Intra AS, RIP, OSPF, BGP, Router Architecture Goals of Routing Protocols Real Internet Routing? CIDR? Dynamic Rout

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Goals of Routing Protocols ❒ Find the “optimal route” 10: ❒ Rapid Convergence Inter and intra AS, RIP, OSPF, ❒ Robustness BGP, Router Architecture ❒ Configurable to respond to changes in many variables (changes in bandwidth, delay, Last Modified: queue size, policy, etc.) 3/24/2003 2:39:16 PM ❒ Ease of configuration 4: Network Layer 4a-1 4: Network Layer 4a-2 Real Internet Routing? Recall CIDR We already talked about how routing based on hierarchical allocation of IP address space can allows efficient advertisement ❒ CIDR? of routing information: ❒ Dynamic routing protocols running between Organization 0 every router? 200.23.16.0/23 Organization 1 “Send me anything 200.23.18.0/23 with addresses Organization 2 beginning . Fly-By-Night-ISP 200.23.16.0/20” 200.23.20.0/23 . Internet Organization 7 . 200.23.30.0/23 “Send me anything ISPs-R-Us with addresses beginning 199.31.0.0/16” 4: Network Layer 4a-3 4: Network Layer 4a-4 CIDR? Dynamic Routing? Dynamic Routing Protocols? Our study of dynamic routing protocols thus far = ❒ CIDR by itself is a nice idea but.. idealized graph problem ❍ Hard to maintain ❒ all routers identical ❍ Work around existing IP address space ❒ network “flat” allocations ❍ What about redundant paths? … not true in practice ❒ Dynamic routing protocols? scale: with 50 million destinations: ❍ They maintain/update themselves ❒ can’t store all destinations in routing tables! ❍ Allow for redundant paths ❒ ❍ But could every router in the Internet be a routing table exchange would swamp links! node in the graph? ❒ Neither link state nor distance vector could handle the whole Internet! 4: Network Layer 4a-5 4: Network Layer 4a-6 1 Routing in the Internet Hierarchical Routing ❒ Administrative Autonomy Routers in same AS run gateway routers ❍ Internet = network of networks routing protocol ❒ special routers in AS ❍ Each network controls routing in its own network chosen by ❒ run intra-AS routing ❍ Global routing system to route between Autonomous Systems administrators of that protocol with all other (AS) domain routers in AS ❒ ❒ Two-level routing: ❍ “intra-AS” routing also responsible for ❍ Intra-AS: administrator is responsible for choice protocol routing to destinations outside AS ❍ Inter-AS: unique standard ❍ routers in different AS ❍ can run different intra- run inter-AS routing AS routing protocol protocol with other gateway routers 4: Network Layer 4a-7 4: Network Layer 4a-8 Internet AS Hierarchy Intra-AS and Inter-AS routing C.b Gateways: Intra-AS border (exterior gateway) routers B.a •perform inter-AS A.a routing amongst b A.c c a a themselves C b a B •perform intra-AS routers with other d c routers in their A b AS network layer inter-AS, intra-AS link layer routing in gateway A.c physical layer Inter-AS interior (gateway) routers 4: Network Layer 4a-9 4: Network Layer 4a-10 Intra vs Inter AS Routing Intra-AS and Inter-AS routing protcols Inter-AS ❒ C.b routing For Intra AS routing protocols: many choices; For between B.a Inter AS routing protocols: standard A and B A.a Host ❍ Why does this make sense? b A.c c h2 a a ❒ Intra AS routing protocols focus on performance C b a B optimization; Inter AS routing protocols focus on Host d c Intra-AS routing administrative issues h1 b A within AS B ❍ Why does this make sense? Intra-AS routing ❒ within AS A Choice in Intra-AS ❍ Intra-AS often static routing based on CIDR, can also be ❒ Single datagram is often routed over many hops dynamic (usually RIP or OSPF) via routes established by several intra-AS ❒ Standard Inter-AS BGP is dynamic routing protocols and an inter-AS routing protocol 4: Network Layer 4a-11 4: Network Layer 4a-12 2 Intra-AS Routing RIP ( Routing Information Protocol) ❒ Also known as Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ❒ Distance vector algorithm ❒ Most common IGPs: ❒ Included in BSD-UNIX Distribution in 1982 ❒ Single Distance metric: # of hops (max = 15 hops) ❍ RIP: Routing Information Protocol ❍ Can you guess why? ❍ OSPF: Open Shortest Path First ❍ Count to infinity less painful if infinity = 16 ☺ ❍ But limits RIP to networks with a diameter of 15 hops ❍ IGRP: Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (Cisco proprietary) ❒ Distance vectors: exchanged every 30 sec via ❍ Can also be static (via CIDR) but that is not Response Message (also called advertisement) called an IGP ❒ Each advertisement: route to up to 25 destination nets 4: Network Layer 4a-13 4: Network Layer 4a-14 RIP: Link Failure and Recovery RIP Table processing If no advertisement heard after 180 sec --> ❒ neighbor/link declared dead RIP routing tables managed by application-level process called route-d (daemon) ❍ routes via neighbor invalidated ❒ advertisements sent in UDP packets, periodically ❍ new advertisements sent to neighbors repeated ❍ neighbors in turn send out new advertisements (if ❒ Periodically inform kernel of routing table to use tables changed) ❍ link failure info quickly propagates to entire net ❍ poison reverse used to prevent small loops ❍ infinite distance = 16 hops to make make problem with larger loops less painful 4: Network Layer 4a-15 4: Network Layer 4a-16 RIP Table example: netstat -rn OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) ❒ “open”: publicly available Destination Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface ❒ Uses Link State algorithm -------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ --------- ❍ 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 26492 lo0 LS packet dissemination 192.168.2. 192.168.2.5 U 2 13 fa0 ❍ Topology map at each node 193.55.114. 193.55.114.6 U 3 58503 le0 192.168.3. 192.168.3.5 U 2 25 qaa0 ❍ Route computation using Dijkstra’s algorithm 224.0.0.0 193.55.114.6 U 3 0 le0 default 193.55.114.129 UG 0 143454 ❒ OSPF advertisement carries one entry per neighbor ❒ Three attached class C networks (LANs) router (i.e. cost to each neighbor) ❒ Router only knows routes to attached LANs ❒ Advertisements disseminated to entire AS (via ❒ Default router used to “go up” flooding) ❒ Route multicast address: 224.0.0.0 ❒ Loopback interface (for debugging) 4: Network Layer 4a-17 4: Network Layer 4a-18 3 OSPF “advanced” features (not in RIP) Hierarchical OSPF: Mini Internet ❒ Many have nothing to do with link-state vs distance Within each area, border router vector!! responsible for routing outside the area ❒ Security: all OSPF messages authenticated (to Exactly one area prevent malicious intrusion); TCP connections used is backbone area ❒ Multiple same-cost paths can be used at once (single path need not be chosen as in RIP) ❒ For each link, multiple cost metrics for different TOS (eg, high BW, high delay satellite link cost may set “low” for best effort; high for real time) ❒ Integrated uni- and multicast support: ❍ Multicast OSPF (MOSPF) uses same topology data base as OSPF ❒ Hierarchical OSPF in large domains Backbone area contains all area border routers and possibly others ❍ Full broadcast in each sub domain only 4: Network Layer 4a-19 4: Network Layer 4a-20 Hierarchical OSPF IGRP (Interior Gateway Routing Protocol) ❒ Two-level hierarchy: local area, backbone. ❒ CISCO proprietary; successor of RIP (mid 80s) ❍ Link-state advertisements only in area ❒ Distance Vector, like RIP but with advanced ❍ each nodes has detailed area topology; only know features like OSPF direction (shortest path) to nets in other areas. ❒ several cost metrics (delay, bandwidth, reliability, ❒ Area border routers: “summarize” distances to nets load etc); administer decides which cost metrics in own area, advertise to other Area Border routers. to use ❒ Backbone routers: run OSPF routing limited to ❒ uses TCP to exchange routing updates backbone. ❒ Loop-free routing via Distributed Updating Alg. ❒ Boundary routers: connect to other ASs. (DUAL) based on diffused computation 4: Network Layer 4a-21 4: Network Layer 4a-22 Now on to Inter-AS routing Autonomous systems ❒ The Global Internet consists of Autonomous Systems (AS) interconnected with each other: ❍ Stub AS: small corporation ❍ Multihomed AS: large corporation (no transit traffic) ❍ Transit AS: provider (carries transit traffic) ❒ Major goal of Inter-AS routing protocol is to reduce transit traffic 4: Network Layer 4a-23 4: Network Layer 4a-24 4 Internet inter-AS routing: BGP Internet inter-AS routing: BGP ❒ BGP (Border Gateway Protocol): the de facto Suppose: gateway X send its path to peer gateway W standard ❒ W may or may not select path offered by X ❒ Path Vector protocol: ❍ cost, policy (don’t route via competitors AS!), loop ❍ similar to Distance Vector protocol prevention reasons. ❍ Avoids count-to-infinity problem by identifying ❒ If W selects path advertised by X, then: yourself in a path advertised to you Path (W,Z) = w, Path (X,Z) ❍ each Border Gateway broadcast to neighbors ❒ Note: X can control incoming traffic by controlling its (peers) entire path (I.e, sequence of ASs) to route advertisements to peers: destination ❍ e.g., don’t want to route traffic to Z -> don’t ❍ E.g., Gateway X may send its path to dest. Z: advertise any routes to Z Path (X,Z) = X,Y1,Y2,Y3,…,Z 4: Network Layer 4a-25 4: Network Layer 4a-26 Internet inter-AS routing: BGP Internet Map ❒ BGP messages exchanged using TCP. ❒ Now that we know about autonomous ❒ BGP messages: systems and intra and inter AS routing ❍ OPEN: opens TCP connection to peer and protocols authenticates sender ❒ What does the Internet really look like? ❍ UPDATE: advertises new path (or withdraws old) ❍ That is a actually a hard question to answer ❍ KEEPALIVE keeps connection alive in absence of UPDATES; also ACKs OPEN request ❍ Internet Atlas Project • http://www.caida.org/projects/internetatlas/ ❍ NOTIFICATION: reports errors in previous msg; also used to close connec tion • Techniques, software, and protocols for mapping the Internet, focusing on Internet topology, performance, workload, and routing data 4: Network Layer 4a-27 4: Network Layer 4a-28 CAIDA: NSFNET growth until The Internet around 1990 1995 Backbone nodes elevated 4: Network Layer 4a-29 Low Traffic Volume High 4: Network Layer 4a-30 5 NSF Networking Architecture Network Access Point of Late 1990s ❒ NSFNET Backbone Project successfully ❒ Allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs), transitioned to a new networking government, research, and educational architecture in 1995.
Recommended publications
  • A Comprehensive Study of Routing Protocols Performance with Topological Changes in the Networks Mohsin Masood Mohamed Abuhelala Prof

    A Comprehensive Study of Routing Protocols Performance with Topological Changes in the Networks Mohsin Masood Mohamed Abuhelala Prof

    A comprehensive study of Routing Protocols Performance with Topological Changes in the Networks Mohsin Masood Mohamed Abuhelala Prof. Ivan Glesk Electronics & Electrical Electronics & Electrical Electronics & Electrical Engineering Department Engineering Department Engineering Department University of Strathclyde University of Strathclyde University of Strathclyde Glasgow, Scotland, UK Glasgow, Scotland, UK Glasgow, Scotland, UK mohsin.masood mohamed.abuhelala ivan.glesk @strath.ac.uk @strath.ac.uk @strath.ac.uk ABSTRACT different topologies and compare routing protocols, but no In the modern communication networks, where increasing work has been considered about the changing user demands and advance applications become a functionality of these routing protocols with the topology challenging task for handling user traffic. Routing with real-time network limitations. such as topological protocols have got a significant role not only to route user change, network congestions, and so on. Hence without data across the network but also to reduce congestion with considering the topology with different network scenarios less complexity. Dynamic routing protocols such as one cannot fully understand and make right comparison OSPF, RIP and EIGRP were introduced to handle among any routing protocols. different networks with various traffic environments. Each This paper will give a comprehensive literature review of of these protocols has its own routing process which each routing protocol. Such as how each protocol (OSPF, makes it different and versatile from the other. The paper RIP or EIGRP) does convergence activity with any change will focus on presenting the routing process of each in the network. Two experiments are conducted that are protocol and will compare its performance with the other.
  • RIP: Routing Information Protocol a Routing Protocol Based on the Distance-Vector Algorithm

    RIP: Routing Information Protocol a Routing Protocol Based on the Distance-Vector Algorithm

    Laboratory 6 RIP: Routing Information Protocol A Routing Protocol Based on the Distance-Vector Algorithm Objective The objective of this lab is to configure and analyze the performance of the Routing Information Protocol (RIP) model. Overview A router in the network needs to be able to look at a packet’s destination address and then determine which of the output ports is the best choice to get the packet to that address. The router makes this decision by consulting a forwarding table. The fundamental problem of routing is: How do routers acquire the information in their forwarding tables? Routing algorithms are required to build the routing tables and hence forwarding tables. The basic problem of routing is to find the lowest-cost path between any two nodes, where the cost of a path equals the sum of the costs of all the edges that make up the path. Routing is achieved in most practical networks by running routing protocols among the nodes. The protocols provide a distributed, dynamic way to solve the problem of finding the lowest-cost path in the presence of link and node failures and changing edge costs. One of the main classes of routing algorithms is the distance-vector algorithm. Each node constructs a vector containing the distances (costs) to all other nodes and distributes that vector to its immediate neighbors. RIP is the canonical example of a routing protocol built on the distance-vector algorithm. Routers running RIP send their advertisements regularly (e.g., every 30 seconds). A router also sends an update message whenever a triggered update from another router causes it to change its routing table.
  • WMM - Wireless Mesh Monitoring

    WMM - Wireless Mesh Monitoring

    WMM - Wireless Mesh Monitoring Ricardo Pinto [email protected] Instituto Superior T´ecnico Advisor: Professor Lu´ısRodrigues Abstract. Wireless Mesh Networks (WMN) have emerged as a poten- tial technology to quickly deploy a wireless infrastructure that is self- healing, self-configured, and self-organized. This report makes an in- troduction to WMNs, their protocols and some existing deployments. Then the problem of monitoring the operation of these networks, is ad- dressed by making a brief survey on some relevant network monitoring approaches and by pointing directions of future work in this area. 1 Introduction Within the short span of a decade, wireless networks have revolutionized the way we use our devices, bringing us cable-free mobility, always-on connectiv- ity, and reduced infrastructure costs. In the past few years, we have witnessed a tremendous growth of wireless LANs (WLANs) mainly due to their ease of deployment and maintenance. However, all wireless access points (APs) need to be connected to the wired backbone network and, therefore, WLANs still re- quire extensive infrastructure and careful planning in order to minimize their costs. Wireless Mesh Networks (WMNs) have emerged as a key technology to ease the deployment of wireless networks. Unlike traditional WiFi networks, in WMNs only a subset of APs are required to be connected to the wired network. As a result, only a subset of the nodes need wired infrastructure (these nodes serve as gateways) while the other mesh nodes have the ability to route mes- sages to the gateways, thus providing also access to the Internet. A WMN is a dynamically self-organized and self-configured network in which the nodes au- tomatically establish and maintain connectivity.
  • Babel Routing Protocol for Omnet++ More Than Just a New Simulation Module for INET Framework

    Babel Routing Protocol for Omnet++ More Than Just a New Simulation Module for INET Framework

    Babel Routing Protocol for OMNeT++ More than just a new simulation module for INET framework Vladimír Veselý, Vít Rek, Ondřej Ryšavý Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Information Technology Brno University of Technology Brno, Czech Republic {ivesely, rysavy}@fit.vutbr.cz; [email protected] Abstract—Routing and switching capabilities of computer Device discovery protocols such as Cisco Discovery networks seem as the closed environment containing a limited set Protocol (CDP) and Link Layer Discovery Protocol of deployed protocols, which nobody dares to change. The (LLDP), which verify data-link layer operation. majority of wired network designs are stuck with OSPF (guaranteeing dynamic routing exchange on network layer) and In this paper, we only focus on a Babel simulation model. RSTP (securing loop-free data-link layer topology). Recently, Babel is increasingly more popular seen as the open-source more use-case specific routing protocols, such as Babel, have alternative to Cisco’s Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing appeared. These technologies claim to have better characteristic Protocol (EIGRP). Babel is also considered a better routing than current industry standards. Babel is a fresh contribution to protocol for mobile networks comparing to Destination- the family of distance-vector routing protocols, which is gaining its Sequenced Distance-Vector (DSDV) or Ad hoc On-Demand momentum for small double-stack (IPv6 and IPv4) networks. This Distance-Vector (AODV) routing protocols. Babel is a hybrid paper briefly describes Babel behavior and provides details on its distance vector routing protocol. Although it stems from a implementation in OMNeT++ discrete event simulator. classical distributed Bellman-Ford algorithm, it also adopts certain features from link-state protocols, such as proactive Keywords—Babel, OMNeT++, INET, Routing, Protocols, IPv6, neighbor discovery.
  • What Is Administrative Distance?

    What Is Administrative Distance?

    What Is Administrative Distance? Contents Introduction Prerequisites Requirements Components Used Conventions Select the Best Path Default Distance Value Table Other Applications of Administrative Distance Related Information Introduction Most routing protocols have metric structures and algorithms that are not compatible with other protocols. In a network with multiple routing protocols, the exchange of route information and the capability to select the best path across the multiple protocols are critical. Administrative distance is the feature that routers use in order to select the best path when there are two or more different routes to the same destination from two different routing protocols. Administrative distance defines the reliability of a routing protocol. Each routing protocol is prioritized in order of most to least reliable (believable) with the help of an administrative distance value. Prerequisites Requirements Cisco recommends that you have knowledge of these topics: ● Basics of the routing process. Refer to Routing Basics in Internetworking Technologies Handbook. Components Used This document is not restricted to specific software and hardware versions. Conventions Refer to Cisco Technical Tips Conventions for more information on document conventions. Select the Best Path Administrative distance is the first criterion that a router uses to determine which routing protocol to use if two protocols provide route information for the same destination. Administrative distance is a measure of the trustworthiness of the source of the routing information. Administrative distance has only local significance, and is not advertised in routing updates. Note: The smaller the administrative distance value, the more reliable the protocol. For example, if a router receives a route to a certain network from both Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) (default administrative distance - 110) and Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP) (default administrative distance - 100), the router chooses IGRP because IGRP is more reliable.
  • Bigp- a New Single Protocol That Can Work As an Igp (Interior Gateway Protocol) As Well As Egp (Exterior Gateway Protocol)

    Bigp- a New Single Protocol That Can Work As an Igp (Interior Gateway Protocol) As Well As Egp (Exterior Gateway Protocol)

    Manuscript Number: IJV2435 BIGP- A NEW SINGLE PROTOCOL THAT CAN WORK AS AN IGP (INTERIOR GATEWAY PROTOCOL) AS WELL AS EGP (EXTERIOR GATEWAY PROTOCOL) Isha Gupta ASET/CSE Department, Noida, India [email protected] the now obsolete Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP), as Abstract- EGP and IGP are the key components the standard exterior gateway-routing protocol used in the of the present internet infrastructure. Routers in global Internet. BGP solves serious problems with EGP a domain forward IP packet within and between and scales to Internet growth more efficiently [1,11]. domains. Each domain uses an intra-domain routing protocol known as Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) like IS-IS, OSPF, RIP etc to populate the routing tables of its routers. Routing information must also be exchanged between domains to ensure that a host in one domain can reach another host in remote domain. This role is performed by inter-domain routing protocol called Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP). Basically EGP used these days is Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). Basic difference between the both is that BGP has smaller convergence as compared to the IGP’s. And IGP’s on the other hand have lesser scalability as compared to the BGP. So in this paper a proposal to create a new protocol is given which can act as an IGP when we consider inter-domain transfer of traffic and acts as BGP when we consider intra-domain transfer of traffic. Figures 1: BGP topology In the above figure a simple BGP topology is shown. It consists of three autonomous systems which are linked together using serial cables.
  • Chapter 4 Network Layer

    Chapter 4 Network Layer

    Chapter 4 Network Layer A note on the use of these ppt slides: We’re making these slides freely available to all (faculty, students, readers). Computer They’re in PowerPoint form so you see the animations; and can add, modify, and delete slides (including this one) and slide content to suit your needs. Networking: A Top They obviously represent a lot of work on our part. In return for use, we only ask the following: Down Approach v If you use these slides (e.g., in a class) that you mention their source th (after all, we’d like people to use our book!) 6 edition v If you post any slides on a www site, that you note that they are adapted Jim Kurose, Keith Ross from (or perhaps identical to) our slides, and note our copyright of this Addison-Wesley material. March 2012 Thanks and enjoy! JFK/KWR All material copyright 1996-2012 J.F Kurose and K.W. Ross, All Rights Reserved Network Layer 4-1 Chapter 4: outline 4.1 introduction 4.5 routing algorithms 4.2 virtual circuit and § link state datagram networks § distance vector 4.3 what’s inside a router § hierarchical routing 4.4 IP: Internet Protocol 4.6 routing in the Internet § datagram format § RIP § IPv4 addressing § OSPF § BGP § ICMP § IPv6 4.7 broadcast and multicast routing Network Layer 4-2 Interplay between routing, forwarding routing algorithm determines routing algorithm end-end-path through network forwarding table determines local forwarding table local forwarding at this router dest address output link address-range 1 3 address-range 2 2 address-range 3 2 address-range 4 1 IP destination
  • Gw2018 Portugal How to Build A

    Gw2018 Portugal How to Build A

    Community Networks GLOBALGLOBAL INFORMATION INFORMATION 2018 2018 SOCIETY WATCH 2018 THE 43 COUNTRY REPORTS included in this year’s Global SOCIETYCOMMUNITY WATCH NETWORKS 2018 Information Society Watch (GISWatch) capture the different GLOBAL INFORMATION SOCIETY WATCH experiences and approaches in setting up community networks across the globe. They show that key ideas, CommunityCommunity Networks Networks such as participatory governance systems, community ownership and skills transfer, as well as the “do-it-yourself” spirit that drives community networks in many different contexts, are characteristics that lend them a shared purpose and approach. The country reports are framed by eight thematic reports that deal with critical issues such as the regulatory framework necessary to support community networks, sustainability, local content, feminist infrastructure and community networks, and the importance of being aware of “community stories” and the power structures embedded in those stories. GLOBAL INFORMATION SOCIETY WATCH GLOBAL INFORMATION SOCIETY WATCH GLOBAL INFORMATION SOCIETY WATCH 2018 Report www.GISWatch.org International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le développement international AssociAtion for Progressive communicAtions (APc) A SSOCI ATION FOR PROGRESSIVE COMMUNIC ATIONS (AP C) And internAtionAl develoPment reseArch centre (idrc) Tapa_GISW_2018.indd 1 12/10/18 12:44 Global Information Society Watch 2018 International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le développement international
  • RFC 8966: the Babel Routing Protocol

    RFC 8966: the Babel Routing Protocol

    Stream: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) RFC: 8966 Obsoletes: 6126, 7557 Category: Standards Track Published: January 2021 ISSN: 2070-1721 Authors: J. Chroboczek D. Schinazi IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot Google LLC RFC 8966 The Babel Routing Protocol Abstract Babel is a loop-avoiding, distance-vector routing protocol that is robust and efficient both in ordinary wired networks and in wireless mesh networks. This document describes the Babel routing protocol and obsoletes RFC 6126 and RFC 7557. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8966. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

  • Nsa Cybersecurity Report

    NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CYBERSECURITY REPORT A GUIDE TO BORDER GATEWAY PROTOCOL (BGP) BEST PRACTICES A TECHNICAL REPORT FROM NETWORK SYSTEMS ANALYSIS BRANCH U/OO/202911-18 PP-18-0645 10 September 2018 1 s NSA CYBERSECURITY REPORT DOCUMENT CHANGE HISTORY DATE VERSION DESCRIPTION 07/24/18 01 Initial Release 08/24/18 02 Re-templated DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND ENDORSEMENT The information and opinions contained in this document are provided “as is” and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. U/OO/202911-18 PP-18-0645 10 September 2018 2 s NSA CYBERSECURITY REPORT A Guide to Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Best Practices CONTACT INFORMATION Client Requirements and Inquiries or General Cybersecurity Inquiries CYBERSECURITY REQUIREMENTS CENTER (CRC) 410-854-4200 [email protected] U/OO/202911-18 PP-18-0645 10 September 2018 3 s NSA CYBERSECURITY REPORT Executive Summary The dominant routing protocol on the Internet is the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). BGP has been deployed since the commercialization of the Internet and version 4 of BGP is over a decade old. BGP works well in practice, and its simplicity and resilience enabled it to play a fundamental role within the global Internet. However, BGP inherently provides few performance or security protections.
  • Networks G22.2262-001

    Networks G22.2262-001

    Data Communication & Networks G22.2262-001 Session 7 - Main Theme Networks: Part II Routing Algorithms and Routing Protocol Dr. Jean-Claude Franchitti New York University Computer Science Department Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences 1 Agenda Routing Strategies Interplay Between Routing and Forwarding Graph Abstraction Routing Algorithm Classification Link-State Routing (LS) Algorithm Distance Vector (DV) Algorithm Comparison of LS and DV Algorithms Hierarchical Routing Interconnected ASes Inter-AS Tasks Intra-AS Routing Internet Inter-AS Routing – Border Gateway Protocol Why Different Intra- and Inter-AS Routing? 2 1 Part I Routing Strategies 3 Routing Strategies Fixed Flooding Random Adaptive 4 2 Fixed Routing Single permanent route for each source to destination pair Determine routes using a least cost algorithm Route fixed, at least until a change in network topology 5 Fixed Routing Tables 6 3 Flooding No network info required Packet sent by node to every neighbor Incoming packets retransmitted on every link except incoming link Eventually a number of copies will arrive at destination Each packet is uniquely numbered so duplicates can be discarded Nodes can remember packets already forwarded to keep network load in bounds Can include a hop count in packets 7 Flooding Examples 8 4 Properties of Flooding All possible routes are tried Very robust At least one packet will have taken minimum hop count route Can be used to set up virtual circuit All nodes are visited Useful to distribute information
  • BGP: Border Gateway Protocol an Interdomain Routing Protocol

    BGP: Border Gateway Protocol an Interdomain Routing Protocol

    LAB 8 BGP: Border Gateway Protocol An Interdomain Routing Protocol OBJECTIVES The objective of this lab is to simulate and study the basic features of an interdomain routing protocol called Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). OVERVIEW The Internet is organized as a set of routing domains. Each routing domain is called an autonomous system (AS). Each AS is controlled by a single administrative entity (e.g., an AS of 75 a single service provider). Each AS has a unique 16-bit identifi cation number. This number is assigned by a central authority. An AS uses its own intradomain routing protocol (e.g., RIP or OSPF). An AS establishes routes with other ASs through interdomain routing protocols. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is one of the well-known interdomain routing protocols. The main goal of BGP is to fi nd any path to the destination that is loop-free. This is different from the common goal of intradomain routing protocols, which is to fi nd an optimal route to the destination based on a specifi c link metric. The routers that connect different ASs are called border gateways . The task of the border gateways is to forward packets between ASs. Each AS has at least one BGP speaker. BGP speakers exchange reachability information among ASs. BGP advertises the complete path to the destination AS as an enumerated list. In this way, routing loops can be avoided. A BGP speaker can also apply some policies such as balancing the load over the neighboring ASs. If a BGP speaker has a choice of several different routes to a destination, it will advertise the best one according to its own local policies.