our paper on routing by preference
村山優子 <murayama@theta.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Thu, 21 October 1993 09:00 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01105; 21 Oct 93 5:00 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01101; 21 Oct 93 5:00 EDT
Received: from PIZZA.BBN.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03491; 21 Oct 93 5:00 EDT
Received: from pizza by PIZZA.BBN.COM id aa10066; 21 Oct 93 4:55 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PIZZA.BBN.COM id aa10062; 21 Oct 93 4:53 EDT
Received: from theta.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp by BBN.COM id aa01683; 21 Oct 93 4:52 EDT
Received: by theta.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp (5.64/6.4J.6) id AA13332; Thu, 21 Oct 93 17:52:27 JST
Return-Path: <murayama@theta.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <9310210852.AA13332@theta.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
To: idpr-wg@bbn.com
Cc: murayama@theta.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Subject: our paper on routing by preference
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 17:52:26 -0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: 村山優子 <murayama@theta.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
The attached is the paper in the text form on routing by preference for our presentation in video. The postscript form has been placed for anonymous ftp in: host: sh.wide.ad.jp file: ~/pub/preference.ps.Z Yuko Murayama WIDE Project ---- An Introduction to Routing by Preference Yuko Murayama Kazunori Fujiwara WIDE Project Waseda University Akihiro Shimizu Motonori Nakamura Tokyo Institute of Technology Kyoto University Hideyuki Aikawa Shigeki Yoshida Fujitsu Laboratories, Ltd. University of Tokyo Hideyuki Matsuo Hitachi Cable, Ltd. Abstract This paper introduces a specific problem with network routing, namely how to enable the originator and the destination to choose their preferred route and paths. We explore the problem in the inter- administrative domains (AD) environment, and come to terms that each one of the end sites of a communication flow _ source and des- tination, has its own preference. Routing by preference is achieved by minimising costs in unfavourable ass. 1 Overview and Motivation In Japan, internetworking with the Internet Protocol has been evolving [4]. The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) [3] has been used between routers in the Japanese portion of the Internet, however, due to the gradual growth of Japanese internet a new routing scheme is required. Since policy routing has been researched and is being used in the U.S. Internet, we are considering making use of it as well. The problem is, however, that our shift to a new routing scheme is due to growth, and not because of the requirement for access control. The Japanese portion of the Internet has not reached the stage of its U.S. counterpart yet in the sense that the requirements for access control [1] have not been materialised yet. We started researching required policies in the Japanese portion of the Internet last year, to find that it was concerned more with connectivity. Under these circumstances, we have identified one specific requirement for control over routing. This is a desire to enforce end-site's preference of a route. We refer to the desire as the Motonori Problem in this paper, and give some requirements for solution. In this paper, we define an administrative domain (AD) as a set of net- works under a single administration. Several intra-AD routing schemes may be used within an AD. The internet is composed of ADs interconnected to- gether. By the Internet, we mean the global internet operating with the TCP/IP protocol suite [2]. Gateways which are engaged in inter-AD packet 1 forwarding, are called border gateways. A pair of ADs are said to be neigh- bours if there is at least one pair of border gateways, one in each AD, that form an inter-AD connection. Our hypothesis of the internet environment is as follows. The goal of the internet is to provide its users with as near as global connectivity as possible. Moreover, routing is performed hierarchically, first on an AD basis, and second on a network basis as in most of the so-called policy routing schemes. We presume that an inter-AD route is expressed as a series of ADs. A path is expressed as a series of border gateways. The organisation of the paper is as follows: Section 2 describes the prob- lem of routing by preference. Section 3 discusses the requirements for solu- tion. Section 4 gives some conclusions. 2 The Problem Description 2.1 Overview In this section, we identify the problem of the enforcement of one's prefer- ence in network routing. First, we describe the original problem defined by Motonori Nakamura. Second, we present a similar problem in an organisa- tion with overseas offices. Finally, the two problems are extended to fit in an inter-AD environment and the problem of routing by preference is identified. This problem is called "The Motonori Problem" in the rest of this paper. 2.2 The Original Motonori Problem: the preference of the source The original problem defined by Motonori Nakamura is as follows: suppose that there are two networks, A and B, interconnected by two interfaces (see Fig.1). In Fig.1, A1 and A2 are the gateways in A, and B1 and B2 are the gateways in B. The two networks differ with respect to delay, i.e. one network is faster than the other, let A be faster than B. We assume that site X in A is closer to A1 in terms of delay than to A2, and site Y is closer to B2 than to B1. In this situation, the problem is how one can enforce two policies as follows: 1. when site X in A sends the traffic to site Y in B, the traffic shall stay in A for as long as possible, so that it will not have to travel in B for long before it gets to the destination. 2. when a site in B, Y, sends the traffic to a site in A, the traffic will exit B as early as possible, so that it will travel most of the journey through A to reach its destination. [ Figure 1: The Original Motonori Problem ] In either case, the source of a communication flow wants the traffic to take the shortest path in the slower network, but does not care how long the traffic would stay in the faster network. 2 2.3 An organisation with overseas offices: the preference of the destination An organisation A with overseas offices may well have intra-organisational links to those sites. Suppose that the organisation has two interfaces, L1 and L2 to the Internet, i.e. the local domain would be connected to one portion of the Internet, B, and the overseas domain would be to another portion, C. For instance, one interface is to the Japanese portion of the Internet and the overseas interface is to the U.S. portion (see Fig.2). [ Figure 2: An organisation with overseas offices ] The organisation A wants the traffic destined for or generated from it, to make as much use of its intra-organisational link as possible. This policy can be enforced by the following strategies. 1. when site X in A sends the traffic to site Y in portion C of the Internet, the traffic shall go through the internal link, L4, and to the destination through L2. 2. when site Y in C sends the traffic to site X in A, the traffic will enter the organisation A's domain as soon as possible by taking L2. 3. when a site in A2 sends the traffic to B, the traffic should go through L4 and L1. 4. when a site in B sends the traffic to portion A2 of Organisation A, the traffic should come into A through L1, and get to the destination in A2 through L4. 3 and 4 above are identical to 1 and 2 respectively and 1 and 2 are identical with the original Motonori Problem introduced in the previous subsection. The problem of an organisation with overseas offices seems to be reduced to the original Motonori Problem. However, in the latter what matters is how to enforce the source's preference, while the former includes the implications from the destination's preference. 2.4 The Motonori Problem: the preference of the source and the destination We define the Motonori Problem by combining the previous two problems and developing them further into an inter-AD environment. We detach the source and the destination sites from the ADs to be traversed, so that the problem is concerned more with inter-AD transactions (see Fig.3). The original Motonori problem could be extended as follows. We assume that site X in C wants to send some traffic to site Y in D. The two transit networks differ by some measurement of cost, i.e. one network, A, is better than the other, B, from X's point of view. In this situation, the problem is how one can enforce the following desire: when site X0 in X sends the traffic to site Y0 in Y the traffic shall stay in A as long as possible, so that it will travel the least amount of the path through B. 3 [ Figure 3: The Motonori Problem ] In general, the question is how a source can enforce its preference of m ADs on a route which is composed of n ADs to a destination in the way that the traffic would stay in an unfavourable AD as little as possible in terms of a given cost parameter. Indeed, routing by preference is achieved by optimising costs of unfavourable AD paths. In other words, we do not care too much about what it costs to get the traffic through the preferred ADs, but do wish that traffic would travel the shortest paths via any unfavourable ADs. The problem of an organisation with overseas offices could be extended in the similar manner. A destination has m favourable ADs out of n ADs on a route. It wishes that the traffic destined to it would come into its favourable ADs as soon as possible _ i.e. to take the shortest paths in the unfavourable ADs. One difference from the source preference problem defined above is that it is the destination of a packet who wishes to enforce its preference. In the inter-AD environment, we presume that an inter-AD route on an AD basis is selected, and then the route is resolved into paths _ a series of inter-AD routers. We have discussed the problems of enforcement of one's preference in path selection so far, presuming that an inter-AD route has been decided. A source or a destination could enforce its preference in inter- AD route selection as well, so that the traffic would go through favourable ADs as much as possible _ i.e. unfavourable ADs could be avoided as much as possible. The Motonori Problem could be redefined as the enforcement of source's and destination's preference in inter-AD route selection as well as in path selection, so that the traffic would go through favourable ADs as much as possible minimising costs in unfavourable AD paths. 3 The requirements for solution 3.1 Overview In this section, we discuss the requirements for solution. Demands from a source and a destination would be expressed in terms of two types of parameters; preference and cost. Preference parameters would vary according to the AD level attributes and the network level attributes including the qualities of service. Some of those may include, but are not limited, to the following: - AD level attributes, e.g. the membership of a certain inter-AD project, and AD categories such as academic, research, and so on. - network level attributes, such as the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) being bigger than for the others. - networks which offer a certain level of quality of services (QoS), e.g. short delay, high throughput, secure, inexpensive, etc. A cost parameter specified by a source or a destination would be put into two categories; one related to distance, and the other not. It might be easier to define the Motonori Problem with distance-related costs, however, there 4 is no reason to refuse the problem with costs which is not related to distance. A source would specify the parameter to minimise the performance, security, or monetary costs in unfavourable ADs. Preference and cost parameters would be used for both route selection and path selection. Preference is used to select an AD route, so that un- favourable ones could be avoided as much as possible. Cost parameters could be used to select a minimum cost route out of possible preferred AD routes. Paths for a selected route would be decided in the way that the minimum cost paths would be taken in the unfavourable ADs. Source's preference may have to be known to other ADs only at the forwarding time. Destination's preference may well be known to other ADs by routing information exchange. It could be known to an individual source AD at the start of forwarding such as at the path-set-up time in IDPR [5]. Deciding a route and paths, one needs to know the followings: 1. Source's and destination's demands; favourable/unfavourable ADs, and the cost parameter to be minimised in the unfavoured AD paths. 2. Costs of transit AD paths; costs of the links between border gateways. Source's demand and destination's demand may collide with each other. Some kind of process may be needed to negotiate with both demands. Al- ternatively, one can set up a policy on which demand should be taken into account with high priority. Furder investigation is required in this aspect. Source's and destination's demands can be taken into account by route calculation and forwarding. Those demands have two aspects; inter-AD routing and intra-AD routing. The demands would be considered when deciding an inter-AD route, so that unfavoured ADs could be avoided as much as possible. Even if there were some unfavourable ADs on the selected route, the effect of those AD paths would be minimised by selecting the preferable one out of multiple inter-AD links according to the difference in link costs obtained by the second requirement in the above. A transit AD could distribute the cost information on intra-AD and inter-AD link between border gateways to other ADs. The cost might vary according to the attributes of the communication flow _ i.e. the type of application, research traffic, source/destination, etc. The costs could be known to the border gateways of the neighbouring ADs in case of hop by hop routing, and to all the possible source ADs in case of source routing. Alternatively, it could be delivered on a request-reply basis. If the transit ADs would not like to advertise the intra-AD cost informa- tion, the end sites' demand could be directed to unfavoured ADs to ask them to minimise a given cost in intra-AD routing . Since the use of resources within an AD is decided autonomously by that AD, it is up to an unfavoured AD to minimise a given cost to route the inter-AD traffic within the AD as requested. Hence, the request would not be guaranteed. A solution would only facilitate a way to express these demands to the transit ADs. 4 Conclusions The work presented in this paper was motivated from the narrowly fo- cussed viewpoint, i.e. a desire to allow a source and a destination to utilise 5 favourable networks to reach a destination. In this paper we identify the problem of routing by preference as the enforcement of source's and destination's desire to minimise a given cost for unfavourable AD paths. We need the way to express the source's and destination's demands as well as the distribution of cost information of intra- AD paths by the transit ADs. The source's demand could be implemented in the forwarding phase. The cost information of transit AD paths would be distributed by a routing information exchange scheme. The destination's demand has never been considered in any policy rout- ing protocol, but it could be implemented at the forwarding phase or at the routing information exchange phase. We are planning to try and investigate routing by preference in both the hop-by-hop and source routing paradigms. Further work is required on the negotiation between the source and the destination if their demands collied each other. References [1]L. Breslau and D. Estrin. Design of inter-administrative domain routing protocols. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM'90 Symposium Philadelphia, PA, pp. 231-241, September 1990. [2]V. G. Cerf and E. Cain. The dod internet architecture model. Computer Networks, pp. pp.307-318, July 1983. North-Holland. [3]C.L. Hedrick. Routing information protocol. RFC 1058, June 1988. [4]H. Ishida. Academic internetworking in japan. Proc. of INET'92, pp. 103-112, June 1992. Kobe, Japan. [5]M. Steenstrup. Inter-domain policy routing protocol specification: Ver- sion 1. Internet draft, May 1992. 6