Interdomain Routing And

Interdomain Routing And

Routing on the Internet In the beginning there was the ARPANET: • route using GGP (Gateway-to-Gateway Protocol), Computer Networks a distance vector routing protocol Problems: • needed “flag-hour” to update routing protocol • incompatibility across vendors Lecture 17: Inter-domain Routing and BGP Routing on the Internet Hierarchical Routing Solution: hierarchical routing 2.2 2.2 AS2 • administrative autonomy: 3.2 AS2 Gateway/border router AS1 2.1 3.3 • each network admin can control 3.2 1.1 3.1 routing within its own network AS1 2.1 3.3 • neighboring ASs interact to AS3 1.1 3.1 border routers • internet: network of networks AS3 coordinate routing 3.4 border routers • 3.4 4.1 4.2 allows the Internet to scale: • direct linK to router in other AS(s) 4.4 • with 200 million hosts, each router 4.1 AS4 4.2 4.3 can’t store all destinations in its routing table 4.4 • Keeps in its routing table: AS4 • 4.3 route updates alone will swamp the linKs • next hop to other ASs 3.1 dest next • all hosts within its AS 1.* 1.1 Aggregate routers into regions of • hosts within an AS only keep a 2.* 2.1 4.* 2.1 “autonomous systems” (ASs) default route to the border router 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 1989 point of presence NSFNet Hierarchical Routing The NSFNet backbone (pop) Area hierarchy: Routers in the same AS run same routing protocol Regional • bacKbone/core: NSFNet networks • “intra-AS” routing protocol • regional networks: MichNet, Customer BARRNET, Los Nettos, networks • each AS uses its own linK metric 2.2 Cerfnet, JVCNet, NEARNet, etc. Users AS2 [Walrand] • 3.2 routers in different ASs can run • campus networks different intra-AS routing protocol AS1 2.1 3.3 1.1 3.1 • internal topology is not shared AS3 border routers between ASs 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.4 AS4 4.3 [Halabi] [Merit Networks] Commercialization (1994) AS Structure: Other ASs AT&T Tier-1 providers Roughly hierarchical interconnect Sprint Lower tier providers (peer) privately Verizon At center: “Tier-1” ISPs • provide transit service to downstream customers • Tier-1 ASs: top of the Internet • but, need at least one provider of their own hierarchy of ~10 Ass: AOL, • typically have national or regional scope Tier-1 providers also [Walrand] AT&T, Global Crossing, Level3, interconnect at • includes several thousand ASs Verizon/UUNET, NTT, Qwest, public network access points (NAPs) SAVVIS (formerly Cable & Stub ASs Wireless), Sprint, etc. 2 • do not provide transit service to others • full (N ) peering relationships between Tier-1 providers • connect to one or more upstream providers • has no upstream provider • includes the vast majority (e.g., 85-90%) of the ASs • national/international coverage [Halabi] [Rexford] “Tier-2” ISPs: Smaller “Tier-3” ISPs and Local ISPs (Often Regional) ISPs Last hop (“access”) network (closest to end systems) Connect to one or more tier-1 ISPs, Tier-2 ISPs also peer privately with local ISP possibly other tier-2 ISPs each other, and local ISP Tier-3 ISP local ISP interconnect at local ISP Local and tier- 3 NAPs ISPs are Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP customers of Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier-1 ISP higher tier ISPs NAP Tier-2 ISP pays tier-1 connecting them ISP for connectivity to Tier-1 ISP to rest of Internet rest of Internet NAP • tier-2 ISP is customer Tier-1 ISP of tier-1 provider Tier-1 ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier-1 ISP Tier-1 ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP local ISP local ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP local ISP local ISP Tier 1 ISP A Packet Passes AS Number Trivia Through Many Networks AS number is a 16-bit quantity • 65,536 unique AS numbers local ISP Some are reserved numbers (e.g., for private ASs) Tier-3 ISP • only 64,510 are available for public use Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP Managed by Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Tier-1 ISP • gives blocks of 1,024 to Regional Internet Registries NAP • RIRs assign AS numbers to institutions • 49,649 AS numbers in visible use (Feb ’15) Tier-1 ISP Tier-1 ISP Tier-2 ISP In 2007 started assigning 32-bit AS #s Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP local ISP [Rexford] Growth of AS numbers Interdomain Routing AS-level topology • destinations are CIDR address prefixes (APs, e.g., 12.0.0.0/8) To learn more about Internet AS state see: • nodes are Autonomous Systems (ASs) • Geoff Huston’s CIDR Report • edges are business relationships http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ • CAIDA sKitter maps: http://www.caida.org/research/topology/as_core_network/ 4 AS_Network.xml 3 5 2 7 6 1 Web server Client [Rexford] Challenges for Interdomain Routing Why SPF is not Suitable Scale • address prefixes (APs): 200,000 and growing Topology information is flooded • ASs: ~50,000 visible ones, and 60K allocated • high bandwidth and storage overhead • routers: at least in the millions • nodes must divulge sensitive commercial information Proprietary information: Entire path computed locally per node • ASs don’t want to divulge internal topologies • high processing overhead in a large network • nor their business relationships with neighbors Route computation minimizes some notion of Policy total distance • no Internet-wide notion of a linK cost metric • all traffic must travel on shortest paths • need control over where you send traffic • and who can send traffic through you [Rexford] [Rexford] Why SPF is not Suitable Why Not Distance Vector? All nodes need common notion of link costs Advantages • works only if policy is shared and uniform • hides details of the network topology Incompatible with commercial relationships • nodes determine only “next hop” toward the destination Disadvantages National National YES ISP1 ISP2 • route computation still entails minimization of some notion of total distance, which is difficult in an inter- NO domain setting • slow convergence due to reliance on counting-to-infinity Regional Regional Regional ISP3 ISP2 ISP1 to detect routing loop Instead use path vector Cust3 Cust2 Cust1 • easier loop detection [Rexford] [after Rexford] Path-Vector Routing Other Advantage: Flexible Policies Avoid counting-to-infinity by advertising entire path Each node can apply local policies • distance vector: send distance metric per destination • path selection: which path to use? • path vector: send the entire path for each destination • path export: which paths to advertise? Loop detection: Examples • each node looKs for its own node identifier in advertised path • node 2 may prefer the path “2, 3, 1” over “2, 1” • and discards paths with loops • node 1 may not want node 3 to hear of the path “1, 2” • e.g., node 1 sees itself in the path (3, 2, 1) and discards the path 2 3 2 3 “d: path (2,1)” “d: path (1)” 3 2 1 ✗ data traffic data traffic 1 1 “d: path (3,2,1)” d [Rexford] [Rexford] Internet inter-AS Routing: BGP Internet inter-AS Routing: BGP BGP provides each AS a means to: BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) is the de facto • use prefix-based path-vector protocol standard for inter-AS routing • propagates AP reachability to all routers inside the AS • 06/89 v.1 • obtains AP reachability from neighboring ASs • 06/90 v.2 EGP (Exterior Gateway Protocol) to BGP transition • determines “good” routes to APs based on reachability • 10/91 v.3 BGP installed information and policy • 07/94 v.4 de facto standard • Inter-AS routing is policy driven, not load-sensitive, generally not QoS-based When an AS advertises an AP to another AS, it is promising to forward any pacKets the other AS sends to the AP • an AS can aggregate CIDR APs in its advertisement BGP runs over TCP BGP Messages Pairs of BGP routers (BGP peers) establish semi- permanent TCP connections: BGP sessions BGP messages: • : opens TCP connection to peer and authenticates sender • advantage of using TCP: reliable transmission allows for OPEN incremental updates: updates only when changes occur • UPDATE: advertises a new active path (or withdraws one no • disadvantage: TCP congestion control mechanism slows longer available) down route updates that could decongest linK! • KEEPALIVE: keeps connection alive in the absence of UPDATEs; also acknowledges OPEN request • : reports errors in previous message; Failure detection: NOTIFICATION also used to close connection • TCP doesn’t detect lost connectivity on its own • instead, BGP must detect failure • sends KEEPALIVE pacKets every 60 seconds • hold timer: 180 seconds BGP sessions do not correspond to physical linKs, but rather business relationship [after Rexford] BGP Operations Path Attributes & BGP Routes Establish session on AS1 When advertising an AP, advertisement includes BGP TCP port 179 attributes Two important attributes: BGP session • AS-PATH: the path vector of ASs through which the Exchange all advertisement for an AP passed through active routes • NEXT-HOP: the specific internal-AS router to next-hop AS AS2 (there may be multiple exits from current AS to next-hop-AS) While connection is Exchange incremental ALIVE, exchange route updates UPDATE messages [Rexford] Path Attributes & BGP Routes Causes of BGP Routing Changes Sample BGP entry: Topology changes destination NEXT-HOP AS-PATH • equipments going up or down 198.32.163.0/24 202.232.1.8 2497 2914 3582 4600 • deployment of new routers or sessions • address range 198.32.163.0/24 is in AS 4600 BGP session failures • to get there, send to next hop router at address 202.232.1.8 • due to equipment failures, maintenance, etc. • the path there goes through ASs 2497, 2914, 3582, in order • or, due to congestion on the physical path AS path chosen may not 2 AS hops, 11 router hops Changes in routing policy be the shortest AS path • changes in preferences in the routes • changes in whether the route is exported Router path may be longer than AS path s d Persistent protocol oscillation 3 AS hops, 7 router hops • conflicts between policies of different ASs [after Rexford] [Rexford] BGP Session Failure Routing Change: Before and After Reacting to a failure AS1 AS1 0 • discard all routes learned • delete the route (1, 0) from the neighbor • switch to next route (1, 2, 0) (1, 0) (2, 0) • send new updates for any • send route (1, 2, 0) to AS3 routes that change (1, 2, 0) 1 • overhead increases with # of routes AS3 1 2 • reason why many Tier-1 ASs filter out • sees (1, 2, 0) replace (1,0) prefixes longer than /24 • compares to route (2, 0) • switches to using AS2 (3, 1, 0) (3, 2, 0) AS2 3 [Rexford] [Rexford] .

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    8 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us