CPS356 Network Layer Interdomain Routing Theophilus Benson Based

CPS-356 Network Layer: Inter-domain Routing Theophilus Benson Based partly on lecture notes by Xiaowei Yang, Rodrigo Foncesa, Rob Sherwood, David Mazières, Phil Levis, John Jannotti

Administrivia • Assignment #2 is out – You’ll be making your own router • Implementing routing: RIP • Implementing forwarding: IP-forwarding – Due in about three weeks (March 02, 2015) • Groups of 2

Today • Inter-Domain Routing (EGP) • BGP – Implementation details • BGP Challenges

Why study BGP? • Critical protocol: makes the Internet run – Only widely deployed EGP • Active area of problems! – – – Efficiency Cogent vs. Level 3: Internet Partition Spammers use prefix hijacking Pakistan accidentally took down You. Tube Egypt disconnected for 5 days

Why Inter vs. Intra • Why not just use OSPF everywhere? – E. g. , hierarchies of OSPF areas? – Hint: scaling is not the only limitation • BGP is a policy control and information hiding protocol – – Autonomous System (AS) owner of a network intra == trusted, inter == untrusted Different policies by different ASs Different costs by different ASs

Types of ASs • Local Traffic – source or destination in local AS • Transit Traffic – passes through an AS • Stub AS – Connects to only a single other AS • Multihomed AS – Connects to multiple ASs – Carries no transit traffic • Transit AS – Connects to multiple ASs and carries transit traffic

AT&T (Transit) Comcast (Stub) Abilene (Transit) BGP All ASes are not equal Duke Cogent (Transit) Multihomed

AS relationships • Very complex economic landscape • Simplifying a bit: – Transit: “I pay you to carry my packets to everywhere” (provider-customer) – Peering: “For free, I carry your packets to my customers only. ” (peer-peer) • Technical definition of tier-1 ISP: In the “default-free” zone. No transit. – Note that other “tiers” are marketing, but convenient. “Tier 3” may connect to tier-1.

Zooming in 4 x Tier 1 ISP Default free, Has information on every prefix Default: provider $$ $$ Tier 2 Regional Tier 2: Regional/National Tier 2 $$ Tier 3: Local Tier 3 (local)

Who pays whom? • Transit: Customer pays the provider – Who is who? Usually, the one who can “live without” the other. AT&T does not need Duke, but Duke needs some ISP. • What if both need each other? Free Peering. – Instead of sending packets over $$ transit, set up a direct connection and exchange traffic for free! – http: //vijaygill. wordpress. com/2009/09/08/peeringpolicy-analysis/

• Tier 1 s must all peer with each other by definition – Tier 1 s form a full mesh Internet core • Peering can give: – Better performance – Lower cost – More “efficient” routing (keeps packets local) • But negotiating can be very tricky!

Tussles between Business and Peering • Cooperative competition (competition) • Much more desirable to have your peer’s customers – Much nicer to get paid for transit • Peering “tiffs” are relatively common

Peering Drama • Cogent vs. Level 3 were peers • In 2003, Level 3 decided to start charging Cogent • Cogent said no • Internet partition: Cogent’s customers couldn’t get to Level 3’s customers and vice-versa – Other ISPs were affected as well • Took 3 weeks to reach an undisclosed agreement

How do you choose a routing protocol for the WAN? • Constraints – Respect $$$$$$ • Autonomy (policy and privacy) – Scaling

Sometimes you need to lie. Tier 1 ISP Default free, Has information on every prefix Default: provider Tier 2 Regional $$ $$ $$ Tier 2 $$ $$ Tier 3 (local)

Choice of Routing Algorithm • Link-state? – Requires sharing of complete information – Information exchange does not scale • Hence areas …. – Can’t express policy • Distance Vector? – Scales and retains privacy – Can’t implement policy – Can’t avoid loops if shortest path not taken • Hence Count-to-infinity. .

Path Vector Protocol • Distance vector algorithm with extra information – For each route, store the complete path (ASs) – No extra computation, just extra storage (and traffic) • Advantages – Can make policy choices based on set of ASs in path – Can easily avoid loops

BGP

BGP - High Level • Single EGP protocol in use today • Abstract each AS to a single node • Destinations are CIDR prefixes • Exchange prefix reachability with all neighbors – E. g. , “I can reach prefix 128. 148. 0. 0/16 through ASes 44444 3356 14325 11078” • Select a single path by routing policy • Critical: learn many paths, propagate one – Add your ASN to advertised path

Terms • Route: a network prefix plus path attributes 152. 2. 3. 4 AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 • Customer/provider/peer routes: – Route advertisements heard from customers/providers/peers • Transit service: If A advertises a route to B, it implies that A will forward packets coming from B to any destination in the advertised prefix 152. 3/16 Duke UNC NC Reg. Net 152. 2. 3. 4 152. 3. 137. 179

BGP: Distance Vector+Paths Autonomous Systems (ASes) Route Advertisement Traffic Session (over TCP) BGP peers

BGP: Distance Vector+Paths Autonomous Systems (ASes) Why should I let others know of the Route Advertisements? Route Advertisement Traffic Which of two paths to use?

Enforcing relationships • Two mechanisms – Route export filters • Control what routes you send to neighbors – Route import ranking • Controls which route you prefer of those you hear. • “LOCALPREF” – Local Preference. More later.

Export Policies • Provider Customer – All routes so as to provide transit service • Customer Provider – Only customer routes – Why? – Only transit for those that pay • Peer – Only customer routes

Sometimes you need to lie. Tier 1 ISP Default free, Has information on every prefix Default: provider Tier 2 Regional $$ $$ $$ Tier 2 $$ $$ Tier 3 (local)

Import policies • Same routes heard from providers, customers, and peers, whom to choose? – customer > peer > provider – Why? – Choose the most economic routes! • Customer route: charge $$ • Peer route: free • Provider route: pay $$

Valley Free Routing • Number links as(+1, 0, -1) for provider, peer and customer – In any valid path should only see sequence of+1 , followed by at most one 0, followed by sequence of -1 – Why? • Consider the economics of the situation

Sometimes you need to lie. 0 Tier 1 ISP Default free, Has information on every prefix Default: provider Tier 2 Regional Tier 1 ISP $$ $$ +1$$ Tier 2 $$ -1 Tier 2 $$ +1$$ Tier 3 (local)

Sometimes you need to lie. 0 Tier 1 ISP Default free, Has information on every prefix Default: provider Tier 2 Regional Tier 1 ISP $$ $$ +1$$ Tier 2 $$ -1 -1 Tier 2 $$ +1$$ Tier 3 (local)

BGP Implementation Details

BGP • BGP = Border Gateway Protocol – Currently in version 4, specified in RFC 1771. (~ 60 pages) • Inter-domain routing protocol for routing between autonomous systems • Uses TCP to establish a BGP session and to send routing messages over the BGP session • BGP is a path vector protocol – Similar to distance vector routing, but routing messages in BGP contain complete paths • Network administrators can specify routing policies

BGP policy routing • BGP’s goal is to find any path (not an optimal one) – Since the internals of the AS are never revealed, finding an optimal path is not feasible • Network administrator sets BGP’s policies to determine the “best path” to reach a destination network

BGP messages – OPEN – UPDATE • Announcements – Dest Next-hop AS Path … other attributes … – 128. 2. 0. 0/16 196. 7. 106. 245 2905 701 1239 5050 9 • Withdrawals – KEEPALIVE • Keepalive timer / hold timer • Key thing: The Next Hop attribute

Path Vector • ASPATH Attribute – Records what ASes a route goes through – Loop avoidance: Immediately discard – Shortest path heuristics • Like distance vector, but fixes the countto-infinity problem

I can reach d via B, D A B D I can reach d Via A, B, D d C I can reach d Via C, A, B, D

Common BGP path attributes • Origin: indicates how BGP learned about a particular route – IGP (internal gateway protocol) – EGP (external gateway protocol) – Incomplete • AS path : – When a route advertisement passes through an autonomous system, the AS number is added to an ordered list of AS numbers that the route advertisement has traversed • Next hop • Multi_Exit_Disc (MED, multiple exit discriminator): -used as a suggestion to an external AS regarding the preferred route into the AS • Local_pref: is used to prefer an exit point from the local autonomous system • Community: apply routing decisions to a group of destinations

BGP route selection process Routes sent to peers Routes recved from peers Input Policy Engine Decision process Best routes Out Policy Engine • Input/output engine may filter routes or manipulate their attributes

Decision Engine: Best path selection algorithm 1. If next hop is inaccessible, ignore routes 2. Prefer the route with the largest local preference value. 3. If local prefs are the same, prefer route with the shortest AS path 4. If AS_path is the same, prefer route with lowest origin (IGP < EGP < incomplete) 5. If origin is the same, prefer the route with lowest MED 6. IF MEDs are the same, prefer e. BGP paths to i. BGP paths 7. If all the above are the same, prefer the route that can be reached via the closest IGP neighbor. 8. If the IGP costs are the same, prefer the router with lowest router id.

Some BGP Challenges • Convergence • Traffic engineering: Load Balancing – How to assure certain routes are selected • Scaling (route reflectors) • Security (Next class)

Convergence • Some reasons for change – – Topology changes BGP session failures Changes in policy Conflicts between policies can cause oscillation • Given a change, how long until the network re-stabilizes? – – Depends on the change: sometimes never Depends on the topology Depends on the time of updates Open research problem: “tweak and pray”

Change: D goes down. I can reach d via E, B, D E I can reach d via B, D I can reach d Via A, E, B, D I can reach d IVia can. A, E, B, D reach d Via A, B, D A B D d C I can reach d Via C, A, B, D I can reach d Via C, A, E, B, D

Avoiding BGP Instabilities • Detecting conflicting policies – Centralized: NP-Complete problem! – Distributed: open research problem – Requires too much cooperation • Detecting oscillations – Monitoring for repetitive BGP messages • Restricted routing policies and topologies – Some topologies / policies proven to be safe* * Gao & Rexford, “Stable Internet Routing without Global Coordination”, IEEE/ACM To. N, 2001

Some BGP Challenges • Convergence • Traffic engineering: Load Balancing – How to assure certain routes are selected • Scaling (route reflectors) • Security (Next class)

Traffic Engineering: Load balancing • Same route from two providers • Outbound is “easy” (you have control) – Set localpref according to goals • Inbound is tough (nobody has to listen) – AS path prepending – MEDs • Hot and Cold Potato Routing (picture) • Often ignored unless contracts involved • Practical use: tier-1 peering with a content provider

Hot-Potato Routing (early exit) Foo 12/8 SF AT&T NYC 12. 0. 0. 1 12//8 SF Sprint 12/8 Bar NYC 12/8

Why is Hot-Potato Bad? • Forward and reverse paths have different properties – Different latencies and loss rates affect TCP – inaccuracies in measurements of the forwarding system • packet loss due to forwarding loops

Cold-Potato Routing (MED) SF Akamai Med=100 Med=200 SF NYC Sprint NYC

Other Traffic Engineering • Want to: – Helps Improve revenue • Route filtering – Avoid Hot-potato routing? • Setting MED weights – Avoid other ISPs using you to get to ISP X? • AS prepending: “ 477 477” • People prefer shortest routes • More of an art than science

Some BGP Challenges • Convergence • Traffic engineering: Load Balancing – How to assure certain routes are selected • Scaling (route reflectors) • Security (Next class)

Routing table scalability with Classful IP Addresses • Fast growing routing table size • Classless inter-domain routing aims to address this issue

CIDR hierarchical address allocation ISP 128. 1. 0. 0/16 128. 2. 0. 0/16 128. 0. 0. 0/8 128. 195. 0. 0/16 University Foo. com Bar. com Library 128. 195. 1. 0/24 • • • 128. 195. 4. 150 CS 128. 195. 4. 0/24 IP addresses are hierarchically allocated. An ISP obtains an address block from a Regional Internet Registry An ISP allocates a subdivision of the address block to an organization An organization recursively allocates subdivision of its address block to its networks A host in a network obtains an address within the address block assigned to the network

CIDR hierarchical address allocation 128. 0. 0. 0/8 ISP 128. 1. 0. 0/16 128. 195. 0. 0/16 128. 2. 0. 0/16 University Foo. com Bar. com Library 128. 195. 1. 0/24 • ISP obtains an address block 128. 195. 4. 150 CS 128. 195. 4. 0/24 – 128. 0. 0. 0/8 [128. 0. 0. 0, 128. 255] • ISP allocates – 128. 195. 0. 0/16 ([128. 195. 0. 0, 128. 195. 255]) to the university. • University allocates – 128. 195. 4. 0/24 ([128. 195. 4. 0, 128. 195. 4. 255]) to the CS department’s network • A host on the CS department’s network gets one IP address 128. 195. 4. 150

CIDR allows route aggregation You can reach 128. 0. 0. 0/8 via ISP 1 128. 1. 0. 0/16 Foo. com ISP 3 ISP 1 128. 2. 0. 0/16 I 128. 0. 0. 0/8 ISP 1 128. 195. 0. 0/16 Bar. com University Library CS • ISP 1 announces one address prefix 128. 0. 0. 0. /8 to ISP 2 • ISP 2 can use one routing entry to reach all networks connected to ISP 1

Multi-homing increases routing table size 204. 0. 0. 0/8 ISP 2 You can reach 128. 0. 0. 0/8 And 204. 1. 0. 0/16 via ISP 1 ISP 2 128. 0. 0. 0/8 204. 0. 0. 0/8 128. 0. 0. 0/8 204. 1. 0. 0/16 Mutil-home. com 204. 1. 0. 0/16 ISP 3 ISP 1 204. 1. 0. 0/16 ISP 1

Global routing tables continue to grow (1994 -now)

BGP Summary • BGP uses path vector algorithm – Intra Versus Inter-domain • Challenges with BGP – Scalability – Security – Convergence • Policy is mostly determined by economic considerations – Valley Free routing