Intradomain Routing

Jennifer Rexford
[Link]

Advanced Computer Networks

Tuesdays/Thursdays 1:30pm-2:50pm

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

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

Internet Structure

Federated network of Autonomous Systems

Routers and links controlled by a single entity Routing between ASes, and within an AS
4 3 5 2 7 6

Web client

Web server

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

Shortest-Path Routing Path-selection model

Destination-based Minimum hop count or sum of link weights Dynamic vs. static link weights

2 3 2 1 4 1 5 3 4

Distance Vector Routing: Bellman-Ford Define distances at each node x

dx(y) = cost of least-cost path from x to y

Update distances based on neighbors

dx(y) = min {c(x,v) + dv(y)} over all neighbors v
v

2 1 1
x

3
u

1
z t

2
w

4 5
s

du(z) = min{c(u,v) + dv(z), c(u,w) + dw(z)}

E.g., RIP and EIGRP

Link-State Routing: Dijsktras 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 Dijkstras algorithm

To compute shortest paths and forwarding table 2 3 2 1 4 1 5 3 4

E.g., OSPF and IS-IS

Routing Protocols (COS 461 #15 and 16) Link State Dissemination
Flood link state advertisements to all routers

Distance Vector Path Vector

Update distances from neighbors distances Bellman-Ford shortest path Update paths based on neighbors paths Local policy to rank paths

Algorithm Dijsktras

shortest path

Converge Fast due to flooding Protocols OSPF, IS-IS

Slow, due to Slow, due to count-to-infinity path exploration RIP, EIGRP BGP

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

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)
2 3 2 1 20 1 3 5

congested link

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

Improvements in the Second ARPANET Algorithm Original ARPANET Algorithm (1969) Timescale of Instantaneous the link metric queue length Routing protocol Update frequency Second ARPANET Algorithm (1979) Averaging of the link metric over time

Distance vector Link state for faster slow convergence convergence Updates on every Updates if change metric change passes a threshold

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

Problem of Out-of-Date Information Lincoln Tunnel NJ Holland Tunnel Backup at Lincoln on radio triggers congestion at Holland NYC

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

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 SystemIntermediate 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

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

Topology Design: Intra-AS Topology Node: router Edge: link

Hub-and-spoke

Backbone

Topology Design: Abilene Internet2 Backbone

Topology Design: Points-of-Presence (PoPs)

Inter-PoP links
Long distances High bandwidth
Inter-PoP Intra-PoP

Intra-PoP links
Short cables between racks or floors Aggregated bandwidth

Links to other networks

Wide range of media and bandwidth

Other networks

Convergence: Detecting Topology Changes Beaconing

Periodic hello messages in both directions Detect a failure after a few missed hellos
hello

Performance trade-offs
Detection speed Overhead on link bandwidth and CPU Likelihood of false detection

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
2 3 2 1 4 1 5 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 4 3 1 4 1

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

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

Traffic Engineering: Tuning Link Weights 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
2 3 2 3 1 4 1 3 5 3

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?

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

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

2 3 2 1 4 1 3 5 3

Scalability: Improving the Scaling Properties

Dijkstras shortest-path algorithm

Simplest version: O(N2), 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

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 1 area border router Area 0 Area 3 Area 4 Area 2

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 50 100 20 100 20 50 50 20 100 100 50 Europe 20 50 50 20 100 100 20

North America

Asia

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

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 MPLS header IP packet

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

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: 7 2: 7

1 2

link 7

1: 14 2: 8

link 14 link 8

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 20: 14: 78 link 7 2: 7: 53 53: 8: 42 link 14 link 8

MPLS: Pushing, Swapping, and Popping

Pushing: add the initial in label Swapping: map in label to out label Popping: remove the out label
Pushing IP A IP R2 R1 B R3 R4 D Swapping IP C Popping IP

IP edge

MPLS core

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

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

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