Bootstrapping evolvability for inter-domain routing Raja Sambasivan , David Tran-Lam, Aditya Akella, Peter Steenkiste
Inter-domain routing is stagnant Many proposed fi xes/replacements for BGP E.g., LISP [RFC 6830], S-BGP [SAC’00], Wiser, R-BGP [NSDI’07] Many proposed value-added protocols E.g., MIRO [SIGCOMM’06], Arrow [SIGCOMM’14] Almost no new protocols deployed (partly) because BGP does not support evolution 2
BGP does not support evolution Cost: 10 ❌ Island Gulf ❌ Cost: Dest AS Src AS 500 Wiser (improves BGP’s path selection by disseminating path costs) BGP Better path E.g., new protocols cannot be used across gulfs 3
ID’d requirements for evolvability 1 Proposed two modi fi cations to BGP 2 Pass-through support Integrated advertisements (IAs) 4
How we identi fi ed evolvability requirements LISP [RFC 6830] S-BGP [SAC’00] MIRO [SIGCOMM’06] SCION [SP’11] Wiser [NSDI’07] NDN [CCR’14] 📃 📃 📃 Deployment methods Di ff er in routing consistency provided BGP BGP BGP Custom New-paradigm Critical fi x protocol protocol Reqs Reqs Reqs 5
MIRO su ff ers from lack of routing consistency M 1 z Gulf AS 2 M 2 Src Dest AS AS Intended MIRO path MIRO (provides alternate paths to BGP) BGP best path BGP 6
Problem 1 : Routing across gulfs M 1 Gulf AS 2 M 2 Src Dest Unwanted AS AS Hybrid Intended MIRO path MIRO (provides alternate paths to BGP) BGP best path BGP 7
Problem 2 - Routing within islands M 1 Unwanted Hybrid Gulf AS 2 M 2 Src Dest AS AS Intended MIRO path MIRO (provides alternate paths to BGP) BGP best path BGP 8
The three deployment methods Hybrid Across Within gulfs islands Consistency Best used for BGP Critical fi x Wiser [NSDI’07] , Examples R-BGP [NSDI’07], S-BGP [SAC’00] Cross gulfs Reqs Deprecate BGP 9
Wiser can be deployed using Hybrid routing ❌ Gulf ❌ Dest AS Src AS Wiser (improves BGP’s path selection by disseminating path costs) BGP Better path Requirements: Cross gulfs, Deprecate BGP 10
The three deployment methods Consistent Hybrid Across Within Across Within gulfs islands gulfs islands Consistency ✔ ✔ Custom Best used for BGP Critical fi x BGP protocol Wiser [NSDI’07] , MIRO [SIG06] , Examples R-BGP [NSDI’07], SCION [SP14] S-BGP [SAC’00] Pathlets [SIG09] Cross gulfs O ff -BGP-path Reqs Deprecate BGP discovery 11
MIRO can be deployed using custom routing M 1 Gulf AS 2 M 2 Src Dest AS AS Intended MIRO path MIRO (provides alternate paths to BGP) BGP best path BGP Requirements: O ff -BGP-path discovery 12
The three deployment methods Consistent Hybrid Exclusive Across Within Across Within Across Within gulfs islands gulfs islands gulfs islands Consistency ✔ ✔ ✔ New- Custom Best used for BGP BGP Critical fi x BGP paradigm protocol Wiser [NSDI’07] , MIRO [SIG06] , ” Examples R-BGP [NSDI’07], SCION [SP14] S-BGP [SAC’00] Pathlets [SIG09] Cross gulfs Scalable O ff -BGP-path Reqs Deprecate BGP dissemination discovery 13
This talk: Adding evolvability support to BGP ID’d requirements for evolvability 1 Proposed two modi fi cations to BGP 2 Pass-through support Integrated advertisements (IAs) 14
Pass-throughs & IAs overview Replace BGP’s advs. & processing Can be implemented in routers or SDNs Limited to path-vector protocols Enable evolvability for hybrid routing by: Enabling Supporting BGP’s BGP protocols gradual deprecation across gulfs 15
Pass-through modules Router or SDN apps Protocols’ IA decision Import fi lter modules Pass- RIB Unsupported through control info Algorithm processing copied over Export fi lter Data plane BGP Critical fi x (E.g., Wiser) 16
IA data-structure goals State protocols on routing paths 1 2 Be expressive enough 3 Detect loops across all protocols 4 Limit message sizes 17
IA data structure 1 2 3 A: Path IDs Protocol(s) Field(s) Value(s) A Wiser 430 Path cost Path ✶ Pre fi x 128.1.1.2 descs. Next hop 127.1.2.1 AS 30 Wiser 1 Node 3168 BGP 2 AS descs. Wiser 4027 3 AS Edge descs. AS 30 { 3168 { 4027 { MIRO AS AS AS Desc. ✶ Wildcard 18
Open questions What are expressiveness limits? How does aggregation a ff ect IA sizes? How to handle di ff ering timing reqs? 19
Summary Inter-domain routing is not evolvable ID’d requirements for enabling evolvability Pass-throughs / IAs su ffi cient to satisfy them 20
References (I) [CCR’14] : Named Data Networking. Lilia Zhang, kc cla ff y, Patrick Crowley, Christos Papadopoulos, Lan Wang, Beichuan Zhang. SIGCOMM CCR vol. 44 (3), 2014. [NSDI’07, R-BGP] : R-BGP: Staying Connected In a Connected World. Nate Kushman, Srikanth Kandula, Dina Katabi, Bruce M. Maggs. NSDI’07. [NSDI’07, Wiser] : Mutually Controlled Routing with Independent ISPs. Ratul Mahajan, David Wetherall ,Thomas Anderson. NSDI’07. 21
References (II) [RFC 6830] : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). D. Farinaci, V. Fuller, D. Meyer, D. Lewis. RFC 6830, 2013. [SAC’00] : Secure Border Gateway Protocol (S-BGP). Stephen Kent, Charles Lynn, Karen Seo. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication vol. 18 (4), 2000. [S&P’11] : SCION: Scalability, Control, and Isolation On Next-Generation Networks. Xin Zhang, Hsu-Chun Hsiao, Geo ff rey Hasker, Haowen Chan, Adrian Perrig and David G. Andersen. IEEE S&P’11. 22
References (III) [SIGCOMM’06] : MIRO: Multi-path Interdomain ROuting. Wen Xu, Jennifer Rexford. SIGCOMM’06. [SIGCOMM’09] : Pathlet Routing. P. Brighten Godfrey, Igor Ganichev, Scott Shenker, Ion Stoica. SIGCOMM’09. [SIGCOMM’14] : One Tunnel is (Often) Enough. Simon Peter, Umar Javed, Qiao Zhang, Doug Woos, Thomas Anderson, Arvind Krishnamurthy. SIGCOMM’14. 23
Recommend
More recommend
