Presentation on theme: "Multihoming and Multi-path Routing"— Presentation transcript:
1Multihoming and Multi-path Routing CS 4251: Computer Networking II Nick Feamster Fall 2008
2Today’s Topic IP-Based Multihoming Problems with IP-based multihoming What is it?What problem is it solving? (Why multihome?)How is it implemented today (in IP)?Traffic EngineeringHow many upstream ISPs are enough?Problems with IP-based multihomingInbound route controlRouting table growthAnother approach: host-based multihoming
3What is Multihoming?The use of redundant network links for the purposes of external connectivityCan be achieved at many layers of the protocol stack and many places in the networkMultiple network interfaces in a PCAn ISP with multiple upstream interfacesCan refer to having multiple connections toThe same ISPMultiple ISPs
4Why Multihome? Redundancy Availability Performance Cost Interdomain traffic engineering: the process by which a multihomed network configures its network to achieve these goals
5Redundancy Maintain connectivity in the face of: Physical connectivity problems (fiber cut, device failures, etc.)Failures in upstream ISP
6PerformanceUse multiple network links at once to achieve higher throughput than just over a single link.Allows incoming traffic to be load-balanced.30% of traffic70% of traffic
7Multihoming in IP Networks Today Stub AS: no transit service for other ASesNo need to use BGPMulti-homed stub AS: has connectivity to multiple immediate upstream ISPsNeed BGPNo need for a public AS numberNo need for IP prefix allocationMulti-homed transit AS: connectivity to multiple ASes and transit serviceNeed BGP, public AS number, IP prefix allocation
8BGP or no? Advantages of static routing Advantages of BGP Cheaper/smaller routers (less true nowadays)Simpler to configureAdvantages of BGPMore control of your destiny (have providers stop announcing you)Faster/more intelligent selection of where to send outbound packets.Better debugging of net problems (you can see the Internet topology now)
9Same Provider or Multiple? If your provider is reliable and fast, and affordably, and offers good tech-support, you may want to multi-home initially to them via some backup path (slow is better than dead).Eventually you’ll want to multi-home to different providers, to avoid failure modes due to one provider’s architecture decisions.
10Multihomed Stub: One Link Multiple links between same pair of routers.Default routes to “border”“Stub” ISPUpstream ISPDownstream ISP’s routers configure default (“static”) routes pointing to border router.Upstream ISP advertises reachability
11Multihomed Stub: Multiple Links Multiple links to different upstream routersBGP for load balance at edge“Stub” ISPUpstream ISPInternal routing for “hot potato”Use BGP to share loadUse private AS number (why is this OK?)As before, upstream ISP advertises prefix
12Multihomed Stub: Multiple ISPs Upstream ISP 1“Stub” ISPUpstream ISP 2Many possibilitiesLoad sharingPrimary-backupSelective use of different ISPsRequires BGP, public AS number, etc.
13Multihomed Transit Network ISP 1Transit ISPISP 3ISP 2BGP everywhereIncoming and outcoming trafficChallenge: balancing load on intradomain and egress links, given an offered traffic load
14Interdomain Traffic Engineering The process by which a network operator configures the network to achieveTraffic load balanceRedundancy (primary/backup), etc.Two tasksOutbound traffic controlInbound traffic controlKey Problems: Predictability and Scalability
15Outbound Traffic Control Easier to control than inbound trafficDestination-based routing: sender determines where the packets goControl over next-hop AS onlyCannot control selection of the entire pathProvider 1Provider 2Control with local preference
16Outbound Traffic: Load Balancing Control routes to provider per-prefixAssign local preference across destination prefixesChange the local preference assignments over timeUseful inputs to load balancingEnd-to-end path performance dataOutbound traffic statistics per destination prefixChallenge: Getting from traffic volumes to groups of prefixes that should be assigned to each linkPremise of “intelligent route control” preoducts.
17Traffic Engineering Goals PredictabilityEnsure the BGP decision process is deterministicAssume that BGP updates are (relatively) stableLimit overhead introduced by routing changesMinimize frequency of changes to routing policiesLimit number of prefixes affected by changesLimit impact on how traffic enters the networkAvoid new routes that might change neighbor’s mindSelect route with same attributes, or at least path length
18Managing Scale Destination prefixes Routing choices More than 90,000 destination prefixesDon’t want to have per-prefix routing policiesSmall fraction of prefixes contribute most of the trafficFocus on the small number of heavy hittersDefine routing policies for selected prefixesRouting choicesAbout 27,000 unique “routing choices”Help in reducing the scale of the problemSmall fraction of “routing choices” contribute most trafficFocus on the very small number of “routing choices”Define routing policies on common attributes
19Achieving Predictability Route prediction with static analysisHelpful to know effects before deploymentStatic analysis can helpBGP policyconfigurationTopologyBGP routingmodeleBGProutesOfferedtrafficFlow of traffic through the network
20Challenges to Predictability For transit ISPs: effects on incoming trafficLack of coordination strikes again!
21Inter-AS Negotiation Coordination aids predictability Destination 1Coordination aids predictabilityNegotiate where to sendInbound and outboundMutual benefitsHow to implement?What info to exchange?Protecting privacy?How to prioritize choices?How to prevent cheating?Provider Bmultiplepeeringpoints“Hot Potato”routingProvider ADestination 2
22Outbound: Multihoming Goals RedundancyDynamic routing will failover to backup linkPerformanceSelect provider with best performance per prefixRequires active probingCostSelect provider per prefix over time to minimize the total financial cost
23Inbound Traffic Control More difficult: no control over neighbors’ decisions.Three common techniques (previously discussed)AS path prependingCommunities and local preferencePrefix splittingHow does today’s paper (MONET) control inbound traffic?
24How many links are enough? K upstream ISPsNot much benefit beyond 4 ISPsAkella et al., “Performance Benefits of Multihoming”, SIGCOMM 2003
25Problems with Multihoming in IPv4 Routing table growthProvider-based addressingAdvertising prefix out multiple ISPs – can’t aggregatePoor control over inbound trafficExisting mechanisms do not allow hosts to control inbound traffic