DOC PREVIEW
USC CSCI 551 - 07b_bgpops

This preview shows page 1-2-21-22 out of 22 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

CS551Multi-homing in BGPBill Chenghttp://merlot.usc.edu/cs551-f121 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengISPn provides transit service to Customern2Transit vs. Nontransit Services Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengISPn provides non-transit service from another ISP fortraffic for its customerISP1Customer1ISP2Customer2ISP3Customer3singly-homedsubscriberMultiple connections provide load sharing but not loadbalancingWith multi-homing, a single network has more than oneconnections to the Internetcan accommodate link failure3Multi-homing Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengImproves reliability and performance:bandwidth is sum of links to InternetBGP cannot do load balancingwhile conventional wisdom prefers symmetric paths,many are asymmetricSymmetric routing4Issues With Multi-homing Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Chengmay trigger TCP’s fast retransmit algorithmPacket re-orderingaddressing, DNS, aggregationOther concerns: Note: using BGP in multi-homing situation is not anoff-the-shelf use of the protocol5Static Routing May Not Work Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengISP1Static routing may send traffic to ISPs 2-n from customerover one link and traffic to ISP1 over the other linkLacks flexibility (especially when ISP1 grows and shrink)CustomerISPnISP2ISP3Inter-connectR2 R3R1traffic forISP2-ntraffic forISP1no BGP, but use IMUXor Multilink PPPEasy solution:6Multi-homing to a SingleProvider: Case 1 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Chenguse BGPHarder solution:makes assumptionsabout traffic (sameamount of prefixes canbe reached from bothlinks)CustomerR2ISPR1use MED in Customer orLOCAL-PREF in ISPFor ISP-> Customer traffic:7Multi-homing to a SingleProvider: Case 2 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Chengbreak-down prefix andadvertise differentprefixes over differentlinks with default routesFor Customer->ISP traffic:CustomerR2ISPR1R3138.39/16 204.70/16Good if traffic load to/fromprefixes is equalif single prefix in Customer, only 1 link will be used forISP->Customer trafficFor ISP->Customer traffic,same as before:use MED in Customer orLOCAL-PREF in ISP8Multi-homing to a SingleProvider: Case 3 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengFor Customer->ISP traffic:R3 alternates links(reordering?)Customer learns full BGProutes and load-sharesCustomerISP138.39/16 204.70/16R1R3R2Good if traffic load to/from prefixes is equalno equipment sharingMost reliable approach9Multi-homing to a SingleProvider: Case 4 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Chengsame as case 2Customer -> ISP:same as case 3ISP -> Customer:CustomerISP138.39/16 204.70/16R1 R2R3 R4CustomerISP3ISP1 ISP2addressingMajor issues:10Multi-homing to MultipleProviders Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Chengaggregationdelegated by ISP1Customer address space:(what are the advantages anddisadvantages of each approach?)delegated by ISP2delegated by ISP1 and ISP2obtained independentlyISP3ISP1 ISP2Customer uses address space from ISP111Case 1: Customer Uses AddressSpace From One ISP (1 or 2) Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengCustomer138.39/16138.39.1/24ISP1 advertises /16 aggregateCustomer advertises /24 route to ISP2ISP2 relays route to ISP1 andISP3ISP2-3 use /24 routeISP1 routes directlyProblems with traffic load?(longest prefix becomes a"traffic magnet")Note: this can actually work wellif the relative sizes of the providershave a good matchISP1 aggregates to a /19 at border routerto reduce internal tables12Pitfalls Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengISP3ISP1 ISP2Customer138.39/16138.39.1/24138.39.0/19ISP1 still announces /16ISP1 hears /24 from ISP2ISP1 routes packets forcustomer to ISP2!Workaround: ISP1 mustinject /24 into I-BGPISP1 and ISP2 continue toannounce aggregates13Case 2: Customer Uses AddressSpace From Both ISPs Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengISP3ISP1 ISP2Customer138.39.1/24 204.70.1/24Load sharing depends on trafficto two prefixesLack of reliability: if ISP1 linkgoes down, part of customerbecomes inaccessibleCustomer may announceprefixes to both ISPs, but stillproblems with longest match asin case 1suppose ISP1 large, ISP2-3smallOffers the most control, but at thecost of aggregation14Case 3: Customer Uses Its OwnAddress Space Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. ChengStill need to control paths:customer advertises longpath to ISP1, but LOCAL-PREFattribute used to overrideISP3 learns shorter path from ISP2ISP3ISP1 ISP2CustomerBottom line: no good and generalsolution for multi-homing to multiple providers1 will use the blue path for packets destined to 4 and the red forpackets destined to 5 15How Can BGP Express the Following Policies: Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Cheng1.21.1232.1 2.22.2.13.13.255.15.244.14.212 will not act as transit to 32 will not accept packets sourced in 11.21.1232.1 2.22.2.13.13.255.15.244.14.211 will use the blue path for packets destined to 4 and the red forpackets destined to 5 (cannot control path, just first hop) 16How Can BGP Express the Following Policies: Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Cheng2 will not act as transit to 3 (do not tell anyone about 3)2 will not accept packets sourced in 1 (no way)17 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Cheng Route Flap DampeningBGP sessions disappear and reappearProblem: route flap when a flaky link constantly goes up anddown: routes are withdrawn and re-advertisedglobal effects (does the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Brazilset off a tornado in Texas?)BGP was extended to dampen route flapsincrease when route flapsAssociate a penalty with each routeexponentially decay penalty with timemust never forget routesWhen penalty reaches threshold, suppress route18 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Cheng Route Flap Dampening (Cont...)012340 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 241 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25Reuse-LimitSuppress-LimitTimePenalty[CISCO - Intro to BGP]19 Computer Communications - CSCI 551 Copyright © William C. Cheng Tricky Issuesinteraction with aggregation"Synchronizing" intra and inter-domain routingGetting packets to the right exit router without introducingtoo much flux into intra-domain


View Full Document

USC CSCI 551 - 07b_bgpops

Download 07b_bgpops
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view 07b_bgpops and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view 07b_bgpops 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?