1. Intradomain Routing Jennifer Rexford Advanced Computer Networks http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos561/ Tuesdays/Thursdays 1:30pm-2:50pm

2. What is Routing? A famous quotation from RFC 791 “A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there.” -- Jon Postel

3. Forwarding vs. Routing Forwarding: data plane –Directing a data packet to an outgoing link –Individual router using a forwarding table Routing: control plane –Computing the paths the packets will follow –Routers talking amongst themselves –Individual router creating a forwarding table

4. Internet Structure Federated network of Autonomous Systems –Routers and links controlled by a single entity –Routing between ASes, and within an AS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Web client Web server

5. Two-Tiered Internet Routing System Interdomain routing: between ASes –Routing policies based on business relationships –No common metrics, and limited cooperation –BGP: policy-based, path-vector routing protocol Intradomain routing: within an AS –Shortest-path routing based on link metrics –Routers all managed by a single institution –OSPF and IS-IS: link-state routing protocol –RIP and EIGRP: distance-vector routing protocol

6. Shortest-Path Routing Path-selection model –Destination-based –Minimum hop count or sum of link weights –Dynamic vs. static link weights 3 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 5 3

7. Distance Vector Routing: Bellman-Ford Define distances at each node x – d x (y) = cost of least-cost path from x to y Update distances based on neighbors – d x (y) = min {c(x,v) + d v (y)} over all neighbors v 3 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 5 3 u v w x y z s t d u (z) = min{c(u,v) + d v (z), c(u,w) + d w (z)} E.g., RIP and EIGRP

8. Link-State Routing: Dijsktra’s Algorithm Each router keeps track of its incident links –Link cost, and whether the link is up or down Each router broadcasts the link state –To give every router a complete view of the graph Each router runs Dijkstra’s algorithm –To compute shortest paths and forwarding table 3 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 5 3 E.g., OSPF and IS-IS

9. Routing Protocols (COS 461 #15 and 16) Link StateDistance VectorPath Vector Dissem- ination Flood link state advertisements to all routers Update distances from neighbors’ distances Update paths based on neighbors’ paths Algorithm Dijsktra’s shortest path Bellman-Ford shortest path Local policy to rank paths ConvergeFast due to flooding Slow, due to count-to- infinity Slow, due to path exploration ProtocolsOSPF, IS-ISRIP, EIGRPBGP

10. History: Packet-Based Load-Sensitive Routing Packet-based routing –Forward packets based on forwarding table Load-sensitive –Compute table entries based on load or delay Questions –What link metrics to use? –How frequently to update the metrics? –How to propagate the metrics? –How to compute the paths based on metrics? Still a popular area of research…

11. Original ARPANET Algorithm (1969) Delay-based routing algorithm –Shortest-path routing based on link metrics –Instantaneous queue length plus a constant –Distributed shortest-path algorithm (Bellman-Ford) 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 5 20 congested link

12. Performance of Original ARPANET Algorithm Light load –Delay dominated by the constant part (transmission delay and propagation delay) Medium load –Queuing delay is no longer negligible –Moderate traffic shifts to avoid congestion Heavy load –Very high metrics on congested links –Busy links look bad to all of the routers –All routers avoid the busy links –Routers may send packets on longer paths

13. Improvements in the Second ARPANET Algorithm Original ARPANET Algorithm (1969) Second ARPANET Algorithm (1979) Timescale of the link metric Instantaneous queue length Averaging of the link metric over time Routing protocol Distance vector slow convergence Link state for faster convergence Update frequency Updates on every metric change Updates if change passes a threshold

14. Problem of Long Alternate Paths Picking alternate paths –Long path chosen by one router consumes resource that other packets could have used –Leads other routers to pick other alternate paths Solution: limit path length –Bound the value of the link metric –“This link is busy enough to go two extra hops” Extreme case –Limit path selection to the shortest paths –Pick the least-loaded shortest path in the network

15. Problem of Out-of-Date Information Routers make decisions with old information –Propagation delay in flooding link metrics –Thresholds applied to limit number of updates Old information leads to bad decisions –All routers avoid the congested links –… leading to congestion on other links –… and the whole things repeats Lincoln Tunnel Holland Tunnel NJNYC “Backup at Lincoln” on radio triggers congestion at Holland

16. Intradomain Routing Today Link-state routing with static link weights –Static weights: avoid stability problems –Link state: faster reaction to topology changes Most common protocols in backbones –OSPF: Open Shortest Path First –IS-IS: Intermediate System–Intermediate System Some use of distance vector in enterprises –RIP: Routing Information Protocol –EIGRP: Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol Growing use of Multi-Protocol Label Switching

17. What do Operators Worry About? Topology design –Small propagation delay and low congestion –Ability to tolerate node and link failures Convergence delay –Limiting the disruptions during topology changes –E.g., by trying to achieve faster convergence Traffic engineering –Limiting propagation delay and congestion –E.g., by carefully tuning the “static” link weights Scalable routing designs –Avoiding excessive protocol overhead –E.g., by introducing hierarchy in routing

18. Topology Design: Intra-AS Topology Node: router Edge: link Hub-and-spokeBackbone

19. Topology Design: Abilene Internet2 Backbone

20. Topology Design: Points-of-Presence (PoPs) Inter-PoP links –Long distances –High bandwidth Intra-PoP links –Short cables between racks or floors –Aggregated bandwidth Links to other networks –Wide range of media and bandwidth Intra-PoP Other networks Inter-PoP

21. Convergence: Detecting Topology Changes Beaconing –Periodic “hello” messages in both directions –Detect a failure after a few missed “hellos” Performance trade-offs –Detection speed –Overhead on link bandwidth and CPU –Likelihood of false detection “hello”

22. Convergence: Transient Disruptions Inconsistent link-state database –Some routers know about failure before others –The shortest paths are no longer consistent –Can cause transient forwarding loops 3 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 3

23. Convergence: Delay for Converging Sources of convergence delay –Detection latency –Flooding of link-state information –Shortest-path computation –Creating the forwarding table Performance during convergence period –Lost packets due to blackholes and TTL expiry –Looping packets consuming resources –Out-of-order packets reaching the destination Very bad for VoIP, online gaming, and video

24. Convergence: Reducing Convergence Delay Faster detection –Smaller hello timers –Link-layer technologies that can detect failures Faster flooding –Flooding immediately –Sending link-state packets with high-priority Faster computation –Faster processors on the routers –Incremental Dijkstra algorithm Faster forwarding-table update –Data structures supporting incremental updates

25. Traffic Engineering: Tuning Link Weights 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 4 5 3 Problem: congestion along the blue path –Second or third link on the path is overloaded Solution: move some traffic to bottom path –E.g., by decreasing the weight of the second link 3

26. Traffic Engineering: Problem Formulation Topology –Connectivity & capacity of routers & links Traffic matrix –Offered load between points in the network Link weights –Configurable parameters for the protocol Performance objective –Balanced load, low latency, service agreements Question: Given topology and traffic matrix, which link weights to use?

27. Traffic Engineering: Key Ingredients of Approach Instrumentation –Topology: monitoring of the routing protocols –Traffic matrix: fine-grained traffic measurement Network-wide models –Representations of topology and traffic –“What-if” models of shortest-path routing Network optimization –Efficient algorithms to find good configurations –Operational experience to identify key constraints

28. Scalability: Overhead of Link-State Protocols Protocol overhead depends on the topology –Bandwidth: flooding of link state advertisements –Memory: storing the link-state database –Processing: computing the shortest paths 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 4 5 3

29. Scalability: Improving the Scaling Properties Dijkstra’s shortest-path algorithm –Simplest version: O(N 2 ), where N is # of nodes –Better algorithms: O(L*log(N)), where L is # links –Incremental algorithms: great for small changes Timers to pace operations –Minimum time between LSAs for the same link –Minimum time between path computations More resources on the routers –Routers with more CPU and memory

30. Scalability: Introducing Hierarchy Through Areas Divide network into regions –Backbone (area 0) and non-backbone areas –Each area has its own link-state database –Advertise only path distances at area boundaries Area 0 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 area border router

31. Scalability: Dividing into Multiple ASes Divide the network into regions –Separate instance of link-state routing per region –Interdomain routing between regions (i.e., BGP) –Loss of visibility into differences within region 100 20 50 North AmericaEuropeAsia

32. Limitations of Conventional Intradomain Routing Overhead of hop-by-hop forwarding –Large routing tables and expensive look-ups Paths depend only on the destination –Rather than differentiating by source or class Only the shortest path(s) are used –Even if a longer path has enough resources Transient disruptions during convergence –Cannot easily prepare in advance for changes Limited control over paths after failure –Depends on the link weights and remaining graph

33. Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Multi-Protocol –Encapsulate a data packet Could be IP, or some other protocol (e.g., IPX) –Put an MPLS header in front of the packet Actually, can even build a stack of labels… Label Switching –MPLS header includes a label –Label switching between MPLS-capable routers IP packet MPLS header

34. Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Key ideas of MPLS –Label-switched path spans group of routers –Explicit path set-up, including backup paths –Flexible mapping of data traffic to paths Motivating applications –Small routing tables and fast look-ups –Virtual Private Networks –Traffic engineering –Path protection and fast reroute

35. MPLS: Forwarding Based on Labels Hybrid of packet and circuit switching –Logical circuit between a source and destination –Packets with different labels multiplex on a link Basic idea of label-based forwarding –Packet: fixed length label in the header –Switch: mapping label to an outgoing link 1 2 1: 7 2: 7 link 7 1: 14 2: 8 link 14 link 8

36. MPLS: Swapping the Label at Each Hop Problem: using label along the whole path –Each path consumes a unique label –Starts to use up all of label space in the network Label swapping –Map the label to a new value at each hop –Table has old label, next link, and new label –Allows reuse of the labels at different links 1 2 1: 7: 20 2: 7: 53 link 7 20: 14: 78 53: 8: 42 link 14 link 8

37. MPLS: Pushing, Swapping, and Popping IP Pushing IP Popping IP Swapping Pushing: add the initial “in” label Swapping: map “in” label to “out” label Popping: remove the “out” label R2 R1 R3 R4 MPLS core A B C D IP edge

38. MPLS: Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Rule for grouping packets –Packets that should be treated the same way –Identified just once, at the edge of the network Example FECs –Destination prefix Longest-prefix match in forwarding table at entry point Useful for conventional destination-based forwarding –Src/dest address, src/dest port, and protocol Five-tuple match at entry point Useful for fine-grain control over the traffic A label is just a locally-significant identifier for a FEC

39. Status of MPLS Deployed in practice –Small control and data plane overhead in core –Virtual Private Networks –Traffic engineering and fast reroute Challenges –Protocol complexity –Configuration complexity –Difficulty of collecting measurement data Continuing evolution –Standards –Operational practices and tools

40. Conclusion Two-tiered Internet routing system –Interdomain: between Autonomous Systems –Intradomain: within an Autonomous System Intradomain routing –Shortest path routing based on link metrics –Stability problems with dynamic link metrics –Link-state vs. distance-vector protocols MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) –Forwarding packets based on a label –Explicit path set-up