Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation
"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Mon, 18 August 2008 19:49 UTC
Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9279B3A6D78; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE193A6D1B for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DNr1lHykV9bu for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D3C28C174 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,230,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="17965253"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2008 19:49:15 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7IJnF0H019819; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:49:15 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7IJnFRr016857; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:49:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:49:15 -0400
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:49:57 -0400
Message-ID: <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B606019F16@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <37BC8961A005144C8F5B8E4AD226DE1110DCBD@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation
Thread-Index: AcjmjMyrelqXdAYdSYqNZy48D3uorwBnTtvAAsvxwCACtdJcEADGrrDgAAeV9/A=
References: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:39:57 EDT."<37BC8961A005144C8F5B8E4AD226DE1109D860@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu> <200807151457.m6FEv4Cs032524@harbor.brookfield.occnc.com> <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B605E92736@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <37BC8961A005144C8F5B8E4AD226DE1110DAA0@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu> <15B86BC7352F864BB53A47B540C089B605FB8A02@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com> <37BC8961A005144C8F5B8E4AD226DE1110DCBD@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Paul Francis <francis@cs.cornell.edu>, curtis@occnc.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2008 19:49:15.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E845520:01C9016B]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=10023; t=1219088955; x=1219952955; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Rajiv=20Asati=20(rajiva)=22=20<rajiva@cisco.com > |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Idr]=20draft=20on=20virtual=20aggregat ion |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Paul=20Francis=22=20<francis@cs.cornell.edu>,=20< curtis@occnc.com>; bh=LU0+jWAbqRb061nTpkUZ5AZZkiaHdZYgUranAmrvUkY=; b=mkjmRPQ36yeyFfNFJzV29ivfePjUtaIphPD7BS/GXG0suY8ypFAxUqP4TX 0LDc9SK0FWJ/uO9yY8N8avlBnJVc8PaC6lj/gu0d3EtLEaGbjwBNacRJrOcY w3UnWwRVE+;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=rajiva@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Perhaps, routing and forwarding entries suppression. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Francis [mailto:francis@cs.cornell.edu] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 12:14 PM > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); curtis@occnc.com > Cc: idr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation > > Ah, now I see your point. You are right, I've been sloppy > with terminology, > and as a result we've been talking at cross purposes. When > I've been saying > "RIB", I really mean the combination of Loc-RIB and the Adj-RIBs. > > If the simplest way to keep entries out of the FIB is by not > putting them in the Routing Table, then great. > > I've been using the term "FIB suppression". One way to deal with the > confusion this generates is to simply have some text in the > draft that makes > it clear that "FIB Suppression" includes not installing > entries into the > Routing Table. Another way to deal with it is to create another term. > Somehow "Routing Table Suppression" seems too broad and > doesn't get at the > core idea. > > Any suggestions??? > > PF > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [mailto:rajiva@cisco.com] > > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:00 PM > > To: Paul Francis; curtis@occnc.com > > Cc: idr@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > Please see inline, > > > > > Bottom line is that if the router doesn't have the full RIB, > > > then it can't participate fully in eBGP. People already > > > > That may deserve further scrutiny. Let's make sure that we are > > referring > > to the same terminology here. RIB, per RFC4271 is > considered different > > from the routing table that the router uses to build the forwarding > > table. In that context, I think you are really referring to Loc-RIB > > above. > > > > Whether or not the routes are installed in the routing > table so as to > > advertise them out to eBGP peers is unrelated. > > > > > > One can certaily define a local policy which results in routes being > > advertised to eBGP neighbor without being added to the local routing > > table. For example, if we look at Inter-AS VPN Option C for AFI/SAFI > > such as VPNv4 etc., then the route reflector advertises the VPNv4 > > routes > > to eBGP peers without installing them in any routing table. > > > > > > The last sentence in the following excerpt from the BGP > specification > > (RFC4271 or RFC1771) may help - > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 3.2. Routing Information Base > > > > The Routing Information Base (RIB) within a BGP speaker > consists of > > three distinct parts: > > > > ..<deleted>.. > > > > Routing information that the BGP speaker uses to forward > packets (or > > to construct the forwarding table used for packet forwarding) is > > maintained in the Routing Table. The Routing Table accumulates > > routes to directly connected networks, static routes, > routes learned > > from the IGP protocols, and routes learned from BGP. Whether a > > specific BGP route should be installed in the Routing Table, and > > whether a BGP route should override a route to the same > destination > > installed by another source, is a local policy decision, > and is not > > specified in this document. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > We should also look at the section 11 of RFC4277. > > > > If BGP, per your proposal, only installs selected routes in > the routing > > table, then forwarding table just gets it. No implementation changes > > between how RIB and FIB interact. This becomes a pure BGP > solution, and > > the changes are limited to BGP, not beyond it. > > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul Francis [mailto:francis@cs.cornell.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:11 PM > > > To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); curtis@occnc.com > > > Cc: idr@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation > > > > > > Bottom line is that if the router doesn't have the full RIB, > > > then it can't > > > participate fully in eBGP. People already know how to shrink > > > RIB and FIB in > > > edge routers that don't need to be full eBGP speakers. > > > Virtual Aggregation > > > makes it possible to shrink the FIB in any router. > > > > > > You are certainly right that trouble shooting becomes more > > > complex. The > > > admin has to ask if the route is installed or not, and if not > > > figure out what > > > aggregation point the packet is supposed to go to and so on. > > > This is one of > > > the trade-offs that the ISP has decide if it is worth making. > > > > > > Could you be more clear about what you mean by "increases the > > > complexity of the RIB and FIB interaction"? > > > > > > PF > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [mailto:rajiva@cisco.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:07 AM > > > > To: curtis@occnc.com; Paul Francis > > > > Cc: idr@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea to keep FIB out-of-sync with RIB is a bit > > > discomforting when > > > > the troubleshooting has to be done for the traffic outage. > > > Also, this > > > > unnecessarily increases the complexity of the RIB and FIB > > > interaction. > > > > > > > > For a lot of network operators, it may be cleaner to not > > > even install > > > > the qualified BGP paths into the RIB. FIB suppression > would happen > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > Note that the decision to advertise the BGP paths to the > > > downstream BGP > > > > speaker can be independent of whether the paths are > > > suppressed or not > > > > in > > > > the RIB/FIB. This may be proposed by this specification. > > > > > > > > Perhaps, you could clarify the rationale/advantages for > keeping the > > > > routes in the RIB. Thanks. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rajiv > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of Curtis Villamizar > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:57 AM > > > > > To: Paul Francis > > > > > Cc: idr@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In message > > > > > > <37BC8961A005144C8F5B8E4AD226DE1109D860@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu> > > > > > Paul Francis writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > To be clear, we are talking about one new attribute, > > > zero changes > > > > to > > > > > > the data plane, zero changes to the existing BGP decision > > > > > > process....just some rules for automatically setting up > > > tunnels and > > > > > > new address aggregates (virtual prefixes). Better to do > > > > > this now well > > > > > > before the next generation of routers runs out of FIB. > > > > > > > > > > > > PF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > > > > > Most providers amortize their routers in three years but > > > keep them in > > > > > service for five or more. Typical growth rates in > > > healthy providers > > > > > are a doubling in about 1.5-2 years with some providers > > > reporting 1 > > > > > year (unconfirmed). They keep routers in service by > moving them > > > > > closer to the edge where the lower capacity of the router > > > is less of > > > > > an issue, sometime redeploying from major cities to lesser > > cities. > > > > > > > > > > A smart provider looks at their current default free > > > routing size and > > > > > looks for at least 2 and better 4 or more times that in > > > FIB and RIB > > > > > capacity, with RP memory size also dictated by the > number of BGP > > > > peers > > > > > and peer groups that are expected to be supported. > > > > > > > > > > Most of the providers with very large FIB and RIB are > > > those top tiers > > > > > that do not do a good job of aggregating the routes > for their own > > > > > infrastructure. To aggregate well, they have to > first allocate > > > > blocks > > > > > of addresses by POP and also subdivide their network into > > > areas and > > > > > aggregate at area boundaries (possibly the only > > > functionality where > > > > > confederations may be more straightforward and less error > > > prone than > > > > > RR, but that is another topic). > > > > > > > > > > If my memory serves me correctly, the target for major > > > router vendors > > > > > (dictated by certain tier-1 providers) was over 1 million > > > circe late > > > > > 1990s, about 2 million early 2000 and some asked for > as much as 4 > > > > > million just to have headroom (and got it from some vendors). > > > > > > > > > > RAM is cheap. Once you go off chip (RAM off the > forwarding ASIC) > > > > > memory bandwidth is much more an issue than memory size. > > > > > > > > > > The problem is mainly "enterprise switch/routers" with on chip > > CAM > > > > and > > > > > TCAM and no provision for off chip RAM that have been a > > > problem. To > > > > a > > > > > lesser extent a few routers inteded as large > enterprise routers > > or > > > > > default free provider routers will now require that you > > > replace the > > > > > forwarding cards. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO again: I think this is not a hack that IDR should > > > pursue. But I > > > > > have mostly worked with tier-1 providers and I am > open to other > > > > > opinions. Lets hear from some providers on this. > > > > > > > > > > Curtis > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Idr mailing list > > > > > Idr@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Daniel Ginsburg
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Daniel Ginsburg
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Daniel Ginsburg
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Daniel Ginsburg
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Paul Francis
- Re: [Idr] draft on virtual aggregation Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- [Idr] Latest draft of FIB suppression Paul Francis