Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-01.txt
Jason Schiller <schiller@uu.net> Mon, 10 March 2008 21:18 UTC
Return-Path: <radir-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radir-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radir-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E5F3A6DBE; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 AunO3Eyh-9xg; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4095C3A6896; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15783A6855 for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 uwkN23nJ-7IU for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pmesmtp02.mci.com (pmesmtp02.wcom.com [199.249.20.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4019D3A6D1E for <radir@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pmismtp02.mcilink.com ([166.37.158.162]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Iplanet MTA 5.2) with ESMTP id <0JXJ0047P9OEHK@firewall.verizonbusiness.com> for radir@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:14:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pmismtp02.mcilink.com ([127.0.0.1]) by pmismtp02.mcilink.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.08 (built Sep 22 2005)) with SMTP id <0JXJ0067J9OEX2@pmismtp02.mcilink.com> for radir@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:14:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from meno.corp.us.uu.net ([153.39.146.71]) by pmismtp02.mcilink.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.08 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JXJ006HQ9OD3E@pmismtp02.mcilink.com> for radir@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:14:38 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:14:37 -0500
From: Jason Schiller <schiller@uu.net>
In-reply-to: <200802261833.m1QIXxHD029525@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
X-Sender: schiller@meno.corp.us.uu.net
To: danny@tcb.net
Message-id: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0803101055330.27795-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Cc: olaf@NLnetLabs.nl, radir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-01.txt
X-BeenThere: radir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Directorate <radir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/radir>
List-Post: <mailto:radir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: radir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: radir-bounces@ietf.org
Danny, I would like to get a better idea of what sort of text wrt iBGP you think this document is lacking. > I still believe this document needs an entire section > devoted to iBGP implications. I.e., the fact that if there's > indeed a problem the first place things are going to > break is going to be in the iBGP core of the most densely > connected networks. > > The reason it's going to break there first is because of the > richness of interconnection, both external (e.g., section 5.1) > and internal, and perhaps more importantly, as a result of > architectural constraints imposed by internal BGP routing > architectures that result in anywhere from 2 to 20x the > number of BGP paths in the internal BGP routers as opposed > to PE devices. You are right to point out that the BGP architecture does play a role in the number of paths in the network. I believe there are a number of aspects to this, but am not sure inclusion of text about this problem space helps define the problem. For example in a flat iBGP mesh, all of the routers will have all of the eBGP learned paths. In the event that some eBGP routes are multi-homed, with equally good metrics, then all of the routers in the iBGP full mesh will have one path for each eBGP connection point for a given multi-homed route. Hierarchy can cause some reduction in path information. All of the multi-homed paths at one level of the hierarchy will be exchanged, but external to that level of the hierarchy, only one best path will be exchanged. If the majority of the multi-homing occurs within a single hierarchal domain, then there will be significant path reduction outside of that domain. If the majority of multi-homing occurs in different hierarchal domains, then there will be a large impact in the level of hierarchy above where the multi-homing occurs. In the lower levels of the hierarchal there will be a path reduction as the maximum number of paths will be the number of eBGP connection points for that route, plus one best path advertised by the hierarchal domain one level up. Hierarchy can also cause an increase in paths depending on the number of routers that lie on the boundary. Take route reflection for example, if a client has two route reflection servers then the client will necessarily have two paths for ever route that is learned via iBGP, with a possible addition on another path for every eBGP connection point for this route on the local router. Thus multiple route reflection servers will create as many paths. Confederation BGP is slightly more complicated. Of all the routers that sit on a confederation boundary and eiBGP peer with each other, one will have the lowest IP address. That one router with the lowest IP address will iBGP with all the other routers in the same sub-AS, including the other eiBGP speaking routers. Thus all of the eiBGP speaking routers will learn paths through eiBGP and through iBGP. Since the iBGP neighbor has the lowest IP address, then the other routers will not announce the eiBGP learned paths into the iBGP. In the opposite direction, there will be as many paths as there are eiBGP neighbors that have a lower IP address than all of the other eiBGP speaking neighbors in the same sub-AS. Aggregation of non-multi-homed destinations can help ease the problem. In the event that that hierarchy is built in the forwarding path, it may be possible to aggregate some of the single homed destinations, by simply drawing the traffic to an aggregate. In the even that all entry points to the hierarchal routing domain are equally good for all destinations, then a simple aggregate can be announce for all more specific singlely homed destinations. However if some destinations are closer to one entry point, then the addresses must be distributed accordingly, or sub-optimal forwarding will result. Certainly as you point out, the problem will occur in the highest levels of the BGP hierarchy. Certainly as you point out, the greater the multi-homing in different routing domain one level down in the hierarchy, the more paths that will be sent into the highest level of the hierarchy. Would a paragraph stating as much be sufficient to meet what text you think is missing? > > There are network topology and routing architecture > considerations, as well as protocol modifications (e.g., > route reflection advertisement rule sets) that can have a > considerable impact on both churn and scale internally > as well. As far as solutions go, I believe we tried to avoid that topic in this draft. I do agree that people should carefully consider the impact of a given BGP architecture on their network, and that part of the solution space might include carefully crafting a network.s BGP architecture to meet requirements while minimizing path explosion. However, on the other hand, I think it would be unreasonable to expect that people could construct networks where the route-reflection routing domains or sub-ASes are sufficiently small to prevent multi-homing, have entry points that are equally good for all destinations, and number all static customers out of a unique subnet for each routing domain. Furthermore, each pair of routing domains will be aggregated by a pair of routers, such that for N routing domains, there will be (the square root of N) + 1 levels of hierarchy. > Furthermore, one could imagine a security considerations > section that discussed a whole slew of topics, from Transport > layer issues to prefix filtering, update authentication and > stability concerns. While I beleive security is an important requirement for any routing protocol, I think these issues may be out of the strict scope of defining the routing and address problem wrt the RIB and FIB size issues. __Jason ========================================================================== Jason Schiller (703)886.6648 Senior Internet Network Engineer fax:(703)886.0512 Public IP Global Network Engineering schiller@uu.net UUNET / Verizon jason.schiller@verizonbusiness.com The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that it increases traffic on the Internet. > ------- Forwarded Message > > From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> > To: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> > Cc: IAB IAB <iab@ietf.org>, > The Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org> > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:57:33 -0700 > Subject: Re: Please review: draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-01.txt > > > On Oct 24, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote: > > > > > Folk, > > > > > > draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-01.txt has been published in > > October 9. > > > > This document targets to be _the_ problem statement. At some point > > this will need to go to the community, but, before defining and > > taking the next steps (which probably involves IETF last call under > > Russ' sponsorship) it would be good to have review from these two > > groups. > > > > Please assess if this document would ready for IETF last call or if > > not, where further discussion should take place. > > I still believe this document needs an entire section > devoted to iBGP implications. I.e., the fact that if there's > indeed a problem the first place things are going to > break is going to be in the iBGP core of the most densely > connected networks. > > The reason it's going to break there first is because of the > richness of interconnection, both external (e.g., section 5.1) > and internal, and perhaps more importantly, as a result of > architectural constraints imposed by internal BGP routing > architectures that result in anywhere from 2 to 20x the > number of BGP paths in the internal BGP routers as opposed > to PE devices. > > There are network topology and routing architecture > considerations, as well as protocol modifications (e.g., > route reflection advertisement rule sets) that can have a > considerable impact on both churn and scale internally > as well. > > Ignoring this entirely in the document, when it's clearly > where the most pain exists today, isn't reasonable. > > Furthermore, one could imagine a security considerations > section that discussed a whole slew of topics, from Transport > layer issues to prefix filtering, update authentication and > stability concerns. > > I have mentioned these issues on RRG and other lists in > the past, though it's quite likely it's been lost in the noise. > > -danny > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > _______________________________________________ > RADIR mailing list > RADIR@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir > _______________________________________________ RADIR mailing list RADIR@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir
- Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-… Jason Schiller
- Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-… Danny McPherson
- Re: [RADIR] FWD: Re: Please review: draft-narten-… Vince Fuller