Egress Route Selection for Interdomain Traffic Engineering Design considerations beyond BGP.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Multihoming and Multi-path Routing
Advertisements

1 Robert Lychev Sharon GoldbergMichael Schapira Georgia Tech Boston University Hebrew University.
1 Interdomain Traffic Engineering with BGP By Behzad Akbari Spring 2011 These slides are based on the slides of Tim. G. Griffin (AT&T) and Shivkumar (RPI)
CS540/TE630 Computer Network Architecture Spring 2009 Tu/Th 10:30am-Noon Sue Moon.
Does BGP Solve the Shortest Paths Problem? Timothy G. Griffin Joint work with Bruce Shepherd and Gordon Wilfong Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies.
Part IV BGP Modeling. 2 BGP Is Not Guaranteed to Converge!  BGP is not guaranteed to converge to a stable routing. Policy inconsistencies can lead to.
Fundamentals of Computer Networks ECE 478/578 Lecture #18: Policy-Based Routing Instructor: Loukas Lazos Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering University.
1 Interdomain Routing Protocols. 2 Autonomous Systems An autonomous system (AS) is a region of the Internet that is administered by a single entity and.
Towards a Logic for Wide-Area Internet Routing Nick Feamster and Hari Balakrishnan M.I.T. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Kunal.
Recitation 5 COS 461. Assuming standard BGP routing policies (Gao-Rexford model), will packets take the drawn path? True or False.
Inferring Autonomous System Relationships in the Internet Lixin Gao.
Announcement  Slides and reference materials available at  Slides and reference materials available.
Part II: Inter-domain Routing Policies. March 8, What is routing policy? ISP1 ISP4ISP3 Cust1Cust2 ISP2 traffic Connectivity DOES NOT imply reachability!
Can Economic Incentives Make the ‘Net Work? Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
STABLE PATH PROBLEM Presented by: Sangeetha A. J. Based on The Stable Path Problem and Interdomain Routing Timothy G. Griffin, Bruce Shepherd, Gordon Wilfong.
1 Tutorial 5 Safe “Peering Backup” Routing With BGP Based on:
Practical and Configuration issues of BGP and Policy routing Cameron Harvey Simon Fraser University.
Tutorial 5 Safe Routing With BGP Based on: Internet.
Internet Networking Spring 2004 Tutorial 5 Safe “Peering Backup” Routing With BGP.
Stable Internet Routing Without Global Coordination Jennifer Rexford Princeton University Joint work with Lixin Gao (UMass-Amherst)
Slide -1- February, 2006 Interdomain Routing Gordon Wilfong Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Algorithms Research Department Mathematical and Algorithmic.
On the Stability of Rational, Heterogeneous Interdomain Route Selection Hao Wang Yale University Joint work with Haiyong Xie, Y. Richard Yang, Avi Silberschatz,
Interdomain Routing as Social Choice Ronny R. Dakdouk, Semih Salihoglu, Hao Wang, Haiyong Xie, Yang Richard Yang Yale University IBC ’ 06.
Interdomain Routing Establish routes between autonomous systems (ASes). Currently done with the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). AT&T Qwest Comcast Verizon.
Inherently Safe Backup Routing with BGP Lixin Gao (U. Mass Amherst) Timothy Griffin (AT&T Research) Jennifer Rexford (AT&T Research)
BGP Wedgies ---- Bad Policy Interactions that Cannot be Debugged NANOG 31 May 23-25, 2004 Timothy G. Griffin Intel Research, Cambridge UK
Economic Incentives in Internet Routing Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
BGP Wedgies ---- Bad Policy Interactions that Cannot be Debugged JaNOG / Kyushu
Stable Internet Routing Without Global Coordination Jennifer Rexford AT&T Labs--Research
Backbone Networks Jennifer Rexford COS 461: Computer Networks Lectures: MW 10-10:50am in Architecture N101
Stable Internet Routing Without Global Coordination Jennifer Rexford AT&T Labs--Research
Stable Internet Routing Without Global Coordination Jennifer Rexford AT&T Labs--Research Joint work with Lixin Gao.
Relating Two Formal Models of Path-Vector Routing March 15, 2005: IEEE INFOCOM, Miami, Florida Aaron D. Jaggard Tulane University Vijay.
Building a Strong Foundation for a Future Internet Jennifer Rexford ’91 Computer Science Department (and Electrical Engineering and the Center for IT Policy)
Inter-domain Routing Outline Border Gateway Protocol.
Constructing Inter-Domain Packet Filters to Control IP Spoofing Based on BGP Updates Zhenhai Duan, Xin Yuan Department of Computer Science Florida State.
Introduction to BGP.
9/15/2015CS622 - MIRO Presentation1 Wen Xu and Jennifer Rexford Department of Computer Science Princeton University Chuck Short CS622 Dr. C. Edward Chow.
1 Controlling IP Spoofing via Inter-Domain Packet Filters Zhenhai Duan Department of Computer Science Florida State University.
How Secure are Secure Inter- Domain Routing Protocols? SIGCOMM 2010 Presenter: kcir.
Lecture 4: BGP Presentations Lab information H/W update.
Jennifer Rexford Fall 2014 (TTh 3:00-4:20 in CS 105) COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks BGP.
Network Technologies essentials Week 5: Routing Compilation made by Tim Moors, UNSW Australia Original slides by David Wetherall, University of Washington.
Controlling the Impact of BGP Policy Changes on IP Traffic Jennifer Rexford IP Network Management and Performance AT&T Labs – Research; Florham Park, NJ.
Stable Internet Routing Without Global Coordination Jennifer Rexford Princeton University Joint work with Lixin Gao,
Pitch Patarasuk Policy Disputes in Path-Vector Protocol A Safe Path Vector Protocol The Stable Paths Problem and Interdomain routing.
CS 4396 Computer Networks Lab BGP. Inter-AS routing in the Internet: (BGP)
Today Graphical Models Representing conditional dependence graphically
Inferring AS Relationships. The Problem  One view  AS relationships  BGP route tables  The other view  BGP route tables  AS relationships  Available.
CSci5221: BGP Policies1 Inter-Domain Routing: BGP, Routing Policies, etc. BGP Path Selection and Policy Routing Stable Path Problem and Policy Conflicts.
Constructing Inter-Domain Packet Filters to Control IP Spoofing Based on BGP Updates Zhenhai Duan, Xin Yuan Department of Computer Science Florida State.
1 Internet Routing: BGP Routing Convergence Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
1 Internet Routing 4/12/2012. Admin. r Exam 2 date: m Wednesday, May 2 at 2:00 p.m. m If you want to take the exam in another day (e.g. due to travel),
1 Network Layer: Routing Intra- and Inter-Domain Routing Y. Richard Yang 4/18/2016.
15-849: Hot Topics in Networking Policy and Networks Srinivasan Seshan 1.
Doing Don’ts: Modifying BGP Attributes within an Autonomous System Luca Cittadini, Stefano Vissicchio, Giuseppe Di Battista Università degli Studi RomaTre.
1 Internet Routing 11/11/2009. Admin. r Assignment 3 2.
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
Hao Wang Yale University Joint work with
Can Economic Incentives Make the ‘Net Work?
Inter-Domain Routing: BGP, Routing Policies, etc.
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
BGP Policies Jennifer Rexford
COS 461: Computer Networks Spring 2014
COS 461: Computer Networks
COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks
Fixing the Internet: Think Locally, Impact Globally
BGP Instability Jennifer Rexford
Presentation transcript:

Egress Route Selection for Interdomain Traffic Engineering Design considerations beyond BGP

BGP Route Preferences  Local preferences in BGP rank routes for a single (same) prefix only  Routing for different prefixes are not coordinated  Cannot express coordinated route selections for multiple destinations for load balancing, etc  Local preferences in BGP rank routes for a single (same) prefix only  Routing for different prefixes are not coordinated  Cannot express coordinated route selections for multiple destinations for load balancing, etc

Coordinated Route Selection  Each AS can partition the destinations into disjoint subsets  Selection of routes for the destinations in each subset is coordinated  Selection of routes for the destinations in different subsets is independent  Model corresponds to choice of egress routes for traffic engineering  Each AS can partition the destinations into disjoint subsets  Selection of routes for the destinations in each subset is coordinated  Selection of routes for the destinations in different subsets is independent  Model corresponds to choice of egress routes for traffic engineering

Coordinated Egress Route Selection S A B D1D1 D2D2 S’s route rankings SAD 1, SBD 2 SBD 1, SAD 2 SAD 1, SAD 2 SBD 1, SBD 2 Each combination of routes is called a route profile

Specification of Preferences  Preferences can be stated using a policy language  Example policy  If D 1 and D 2 use different links, assign a base local preference of 100; otherwise a base local preference of 0  If D 1 uses link SA, add 10 to the local preference  If D 2 uses link SB, add 5 to the local preference  Route profile with the highest local preference will be selected  Preferences can be stated using a policy language  Example policy  If D 1 and D 2 use different links, assign a base local preference of 100; otherwise a base local preference of 0  If D 1 uses link SA, add 10 to the local preference  If D 2 uses link SB, add 5 to the local preference  Route profile with the highest local preference will be selected

Problem Formulation  Only one link between two neighboring ASes  Each AS uses a static export policy  Each AS may coordinate the route selection of only a subset of its destinations  Preference of an AS depends only on the route from itself to the destinations  Not on routes into the AS, not on routes that don’t pass through the AS, etc  Only one link between two neighboring ASes  Each AS uses a static export policy  Each AS may coordinate the route selection of only a subset of its destinations  Preference of an AS depends only on the route from itself to the destinations  Not on routes into the AS, not on routes that don’t pass through the AS, etc

Multi-destination Routing Stability  Typical export policies assumed  Each AS exports to its providers (peers) its own routes and customer routes, but not its peer / provider routes  AS exports to its customers all its routes  Independent route selection for different prefixes leads to stability (BGP result), but …  Coordinated route selection can lead to instability  Typical export policies assumed  Each AS exports to its providers (peers) its own routes and customer routes, but not its peer / provider routes  AS exports to its customers all its routes  Independent route selection for different prefixes leads to stability (BGP result), but …  Coordinated route selection can lead to instability

Example Network A G1G1 G2G2 D1D1 F E D2D2 H2H2 H1H1 B ABD 1, AED 2 AG 1 G 2 D 1, AD 2 ABFD 1, AED 2 BD 1, BAD 2 BFD 1, BH 1 H 2 D 2 BD 1, BAED 2 For D 1 only, has solution ABD 1, BD 1 Joint D 1 and D 2 : (AG 1 G 2 D 1,AD 2 ) (AG 1 G 2 D 1,AD 2 ) (ABD 1,AED 2 ) (ABD 1,AED 2 ) (BFD 1,BH 1 H 2 D 2 ) (BD 1,BAD 2 ) (BD 1,BAD 2 ) (BFD 1,BH 1 H 2 D 2 )

P-Graph  Directed graph constructed as follows  There is a node for each possible (partial) route profile  There is an improvement edge from node u to node v if v is preferred over u  There is a destination D subpath edge from node u to node v if the path to D in v is subpath of the path to D in u  Directed graph constructed as follows  There is a node for each possible (partial) route profile  There is an improvement edge from node u to node v if v is preferred over u  There is a destination D subpath edge from node u to node v if the path to D in v is subpath of the path to D in u

Example P-Graph (ABD 1, AED 2 ) (BD 1, BAD 2 ) (AG 1 G 2 D 1, AD 2 ) (BFD 1, BH 1 H 2 D 2 ) (ABFD 1, AED 2 ) (BD 1, BAED 2 ) D1 subpath edge D2 subpath edge Improvement edge

P-Cycle  A P-cycle in a P-graph is a loop consisting of  One or more improvement edges, followed by  One or more sub-path edges to the same destination, followed by  One or more improvement edges, and so on …  A P-cycle in a P-graph is a loop consisting of  One or more improvement edges, followed by  One or more sub-path edges to the same destination, followed by  One or more improvement edges, and so on …

Example P-Cycle (ABD 1, AED 2 ) (BD 1, BAD 2 ) (AG 1 G 2 D 1, AD 2 ) (BFD 1, BH 1 H 2 D 2 ) (ABFD 1, AED 2 ) (BD 1, BAED 2 ) D1 subpath edge D2 subpath edge Improvement edge P-cycle

Convergence Condition  If the P-graph of a BGP system does not contain any P-cycle, then the system is guaranteed to converge on the destinations in each AS  Condition is sufficient but not necessary  If the P-graph of a BGP system does not contain any P-cycle, then the system is guaranteed to converge on the destinations in each AS  Condition is sufficient but not necessary

Pareto Optimality  Solution is Pareto optimal if  There does not exist another solution where at least one AS is better off and all the other ASes are not worse off  Stable BGP solutions are Pareto optimal, but …  Coordinated route selection does not guarantee Pareto optimal solutions  Solution is Pareto optimal if  There does not exist another solution where at least one AS is better off and all the other ASes are not worse off  Stable BGP solutions are Pareto optimal, but …  Coordinated route selection does not guarantee Pareto optimal solutions

Non-Pareto Optimal Solution C F AB D1D1 D2D2 (ABCD 1, AD 2 ) (AD 1, ACD 2 ) (CD 1, CBAD 2 ) (CFD 1, CD 2 ) (BCD 1, BAD 2 ) (BD 1, BCD 2 ) Solution 1: (ABCD 1, AD 2 ) (BCD 1, BAD 2 ) (CD 1, CBAD 2 ) Solution 2: (AD 1, ACD 2 ) (BD 1, BCD 2 ) (CFD 1, CD 2 )

Typical Export Policies  Routes from AS i to destination d fall into three categories  Customer route: each link on route is provider-customer link  Peer route: first link on route is a peer link, and the remaining are all provider-customer  Provider route: first link is customer-provider, followed by zero or more customer-provider links, zero or one peer link, and then zero or more provider-customer links  Routes from AS i to destination d fall into three categories  Customer route: each link on route is provider-customer link  Peer route: first link on route is a peer link, and the remaining are all provider-customer  Provider route: first link is customer-provider, followed by zero or more customer-provider links, zero or one peer link, and then zero or more provider-customer links

Classes of Destinations  Customer reachable destinations of AS i  These destinations are direct / indirect customers of the AS i  Peer-provider reachable destinations of AS i  These destinations are direct / indirect customers of one of AS i’s peers or providers, but they are not direct / indirect customers of AS i  Customer reachable destinations of AS i  These destinations are direct / indirect customers of the AS i  Peer-provider reachable destinations of AS i  These destinations are direct / indirect customers of one of AS i’s peers or providers, but they are not direct / indirect customers of AS i

Standard Joint-route Preference Policy  Customer routes are (strictly) preferred over peer / provider routes  AS i’s routing decisions for a customer reachable destination  Can depend on the routing decisions for its other customer reachable destinations, but  Is independent of the routing decisions for its peer-provider reachable destinations  AS i’s routing decisions for its peer-provider destinations can depend on each other, but is independent of the routing decisions for its customer reachable destinations  Customer routes are (strictly) preferred over peer / provider routes  AS i’s routing decisions for a customer reachable destination  Can depend on the routing decisions for its other customer reachable destinations, but  Is independent of the routing decisions for its peer-provider reachable destinations  AS i’s routing decisions for its peer-provider destinations can depend on each other, but is independent of the routing decisions for its customer reachable destinations

Guaranteed Stable Route Selection  The network is guaranteed to converge to a unique stable route selection if the following conditions hold  There is no provider-customer loop in the network  All ASes use typical export policies  The routing decisions for customer-reachable and peer-provider reachable destinations follow the standard joint route preference policy  The network is guaranteed to converge to a unique stable route selection if the following conditions hold  There is no provider-customer loop in the network  All ASes use typical export policies  The routing decisions for customer-reachable and peer-provider reachable destinations follow the standard joint route preference policy