1 BGP Convergence BGP Convergence Measurement Measurement Issues Issues Susan Hares, NextHop Padma Krishnaswamy, NextHop Marianne Lepp, Juniper Networks Alvaro Retana, Cisco Howard Berkowitz, Gett Communications Elwyn Davies, Nortel Networks
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
BGP ConvergenceBGP ConvergenceMeasurement Measurement IssuesIssues
Susan Hares, NextHop
Padma Krishnaswamy, NextHop
Marianne Lepp, Juniper Networks
Alvaro Retana, Cisco
Howard Berkowitz, Gett Communications
Elwyn Davies, Nortel Networks
2
AS
Convergence? Convergence?
Tester Tester
Internet-wide
AS
AS
AS AS
FlappingAS
He's Dead, Jim
3
Single AS
Convergence: Within an ASConvergence: Within an AS
RR
RTester Tester
AS-wideiBGP
4
Convergence: Within a BoxConvergence: Within a Box
Single BoxTester TesterRouting/ControlForwarding
5
Convergence for BMWG Convergence for BMWG
• Box wide— eBGP initially
— Control Plane initially
— Black box
— Specify begin and end of convergence measurement
— Specify measurement point
6
Send a packet stream from TRSend a packet stream from TR – 3 Measurements – 3 Measurements• Convergence 1: 1st packet sent from Test
Generator to 1st packet received by Test Collector— Transmission in and out plus process time of 1st packet
• Convergence 2: Last Packet sent from Test Generator to last packet received by Test Collector— Transmission in, queuing, processing of preceding updates, tail
end processing, transmission out of last packet
• Convergence 3: 1st packet sent from Test Generator to last packet received by Test Collector— Transmission in and out (relative to DUT), plus back-up in BGP
update and processing of entire stream
7
Measurement 1-3: FactorsMeasurement 1-3: Factors
• Packing matters— Influences number of packets in the train
— Attribute packing– Classification speed– Packetization triggers
• IBGP synchronization turned off
• Turn off Minimum Route Advertisement Interval Timers
• Smoothing in BGP to avoid self-synchronization in the Network
8
BGP Convergence Depends On … BGP Convergence Depends On …
• Route mixtures
• Packet packing
• Timers
• TCP implementations
• Peers types, number of peers, and connectivity
• BGP-specific functionality— Eg. Confederations, use of route reflectors, etc.
• Topology
• Vantage point within the network
• Policy
9
Benchmarking Convergence Benchmarking Convergence ApproachApproach• Must be repeatable
• Must be consistent
• Must be specifiable
• Must take into account— Route mixture (data)
— Peers types and connectivity
— BGP-specific functionality
— Topology
10
GoalsGoals
• Provide a baseline of expected performance in today’s network.
• Test different vendor implementations fairly
• Design tests that can be replicated
• Good results require good data— The amount, type and composition of the information
advertised to the DUT has an impact on the convergence.
11
Route MixturesRoute Mixtures
12
Modeling Route Mixtures: Modeling Route Mixtures: Why not just use a feed?Why not just use a feed?
• The route mixture is highly dependent on the vantage point – Tier 1 ISP, Enterprise, Access, etc.
• Problems with Looking Glass— Vantage point
• Need to test tables larger than current live tables
• Needs to be repeatable, consistent, and specifiable
13
Route MixtureRoute Mixture
• Factors that describe the BGP Table: composition and timing
—Prefix distribution–Node distribution and levels on tree
—AS mixtures and path lengths
—Attribute distribution (nexthop, communities,MED, localpref)
—Packet packing
—Update sequencing (timing)–Packet trains
14
Prefix DistributionPrefix Distribution
• Example: A table of all /32s is not representative of the real world
• Prefixes are distributed across dozens of prefix lengths— For IPv4, the distribution is spread out through the Class A, B,
and C address spaces.
— For IPv6, there is no data
• Need to describe prefix distribution per prefix length— Better characterization for IPv4 if Class also taken into account
• Analyze current Internet table to determine prefix distribution characteristics
15
Prefix DistributionPrefix Distribution
• Example percentages of prefix distribution:
• Mask Overall Class A Class B Class C
• 16 0.08114 0.00076 0.06637 0.01401 17 0.00912 0.00030 0.00142 0.00741 18 0.01813 0.00093 0.00113 0.01607 19 0.05910 0.00378 0.00196 0.05336 20 0.03372 0.00152 0.00151 0.03070 21 0.04128 0.00085 0.00127 0.03915 22 0.05574 0.00171 0.00226 0.05176 23 0.07878 0.00235 0.00450 0.07193 24 0.53355 0.00892 0.02366 0.50097
Total prefix length distribution.
IPv4 sample distribution across classes.
16
IP v6 Prefix DistributionIP v6 Prefix Distribution• Example percentages of prefix distribution:
• Mask Overall 3FEE 2001 other
• 0-10 0.08114 0.00076 0.06637 0.01401 11-20 0.00912 0.00030 0.00142 0.00741 21-30 0.01813 0.00093 0.00113 0.01607 31-40 0.05910 0.00378 0.00196 0.05336 41-50 0.03372 0.00152 0.00151 0.03070 51-60 0.04128 0.00085 0.00127 0.03915 61-70 0.05574 0.00171 0.00226 0.05176 71-80 0.07878 0.00235 0.00450 0.07193 81-90 0.53355 0.00892 0.02366 0.50097
• 91-100 0.53355 0.00892 0.02366 0.50097
• 100-110 0.53355 0.00892 0.02366 0.50097
• 111-128 0.53355 0.00892 0.02366 0.50097
Total prefix length distribution.
IPv6 sample distribution across currently routed
Addres space
17
Node DistributionNode Distribution
• Is tree dependent
• Width and depth of table are important
• Route mixtures should exercise various choices of trees— A route mixture that minimizes the number of nodes is not
accurate
— A route mixture that maximizes the spread of prefixes creates is not accurate
18
Node DistributionNode Distribution
R O O T
10.0.0.0
192.5.0.0 192.8.0.0
192.8.2.0
192.8.2.0 192.8.2.128
192.0.0.0
54.10.4.054.10.1.0
54.10.0.0
54.0.0.0
10.1.1.1
10.10.5.010.1.1.0
10.1.0.0 10.10.0.0
Levels
Nodes
19
IP v6 Node DistributionIP v6 Node Distribution
ROOT
3FEE::
2001::01 2001:02
2001:0201
2001::
3FEE:0101
3FEE:0100 3FEE:2000::
Levels
Nodes
3FEE:0101:01
3FEE:0101
2001:0201:01 2001:0201:02
20
Node DistributionNode Distribution
• For example, the following tables both contain three Class A /32 prefixes— Table A 1.1.1.1/32, 1.1.1.2/32, 1.1.1.3/32
— Table B 1.1.1.1/32, 2.1.1.1/32, 3.1.1.1/32
— Their distribution in a tree will be different.– Table A represents a narrow distribution, while Table B
represents a wide distribution.
1.0.0.01.0.0.0
1.1.0.01.1.0.0
1.1.1.21.1.1.2
1.1.1.01.1.1.0
1.1.1.21.1.1.21.1.1.11.1.1.1
ROOT
Table A1.0.0.01.0.0.0
1.1.1.11.1.1.1
1.1.1.01.1.1.0
1.1.0.01.1.0.0
2.0.0.02.0.0.0
2.1.1.12.1.1.1
2.1.1.02.1.1.0
2.1.0.02.1.0.0
3.0.0.03.0.0.0
3.1.1.13.1.1.1
3.1.1.03.1.1.0
3.1.0.03.1.0.0
ROOTTable B
21
Node Distribution SummaryNode Distribution Summary
• The width of the table must be measured per prefix distribution and length
• Need to determine how many nodes each address/prefix length combination use in a real table
• Solution: Analyze current Internet table to determine node distribution characteristics
22
Route ComponentsRoute Components
23
BGP Attribute DistributionBGP Attribute Distribution
• A BGP table contains many “attribute combinations”
• Analysis shows:—11.75% of the routes have a unique AS_PATH
—2.5% of the routes have some other unique attribute.
—0.25% of the table have both a unique AS_PATH and some other unique attribute
24
BGP Attribute DistributionBGP Attribute Distribution
• Prefixes that share an attribute are not necessarily grouped together
• Analysis shows an average of two consecutive NLRI share the same attribute combination
— 1.0.0.0/8 AS_PATH 100 200— 2.0.0.0/8 AS_PATH 100 200— 3.0.0.0/8 AS_PATH 200 300— 4.0.0.0/8 AS_PATH 200 300— 5.0.0.0/8 AS_PATH 200 300— 6.0.0.0/8 AS_PATH 100 200
25
Planes (control),Planes (control),Trains,Trains,and no Automobilesand no Automobiles
26
Packet PackingPacket Packing
• Each packet has attributes and NLRIs
• Attribute packing is the ability to detect and pack NRLIs with the same attributes into a packet
• NLRI packing is:— the number of NLRIs per packet
— MPBGP not considered for 1st draft– IPv6 packing is not different than IPv4– Multicast packing (IP v4 and IP v6) may impact packing
• Specifics are affected by implementation
27
Update Sequencing (Timing)Update Sequencing (Timing)
• Parameters are:— Number of packets in a train
— Interval between packets in a train
— TCP parameters, traffic and implementations affect this
Packet 1 Packet 2 Packet 3 Packet 4
Packet train Packet train
28
TimersTimers
• Key timers— Min-Route Advertisement Interval, Min AS Originations Interval --
best setting still in debate
— Route Flap damping mechanisms– Implementations vary– Shorter prefixes get less damping– RIPE 229 suggest parameters– 1st Bgp Conv draft mandates route flap damping off
— TCP settings
• Operators need to give feedback
29
Peers, not BeersPeers, not Beers
30
Peer type mattersPeer type matters
• EBGP vs IBGP
• EBGP— 3rd party versus 1st party nexthop
— promiscuous versus specific peering
• IBGP - Route Reflection client and Confederations affect convergence patterns— See ietf-idr-route-oscillations-01.txt
• Still single box but these affect work done by box
31
Multiple Peers in test EnvironmentMultiple Peers in test Environment
• Peers can have staggered starts— Most realistic
• Peers can all send simultaneously— Most load on the router
• Peers can have staggered starts in groups
32
Sample topology with 4 PeersSample topology with 4 Peers
TG1 DUT TC
tcpdump tcpdump
TG2
TG3
TG4
tcpdump
tcpdump
tcpdump
33
Peer SpecificsPeer Specifics
• Type of Peer— Promiscuous/Specific
• Sequence— Connection establishment
— Sending 1st data
— Spacing of updates
— Connection up/down
34
Timing & SynchronizationTiming & Synchronization
• Consistency among timestamps taken by different devices is a requirement
• Should be at least 1 order of magnitude better than measured quantity — For BGP convergence, we are time-stamping packets
• NTP? GPS? Other?
• Synchronization between measurements can a significant factor
35
Some Boxes workSome Boxes workHarder than OthersHarder than Others
36
BGP Protocol functions will impact BGP Protocol functions will impact convergenceconvergence
• Route Reflections,
• Confederations
• Add/delete communities
• RFC 2547, Label switching
• Multi-protocol
• Route flap damping
• Min Route Advertisement
37
Parameters we suggest for Protocol Parameters we suggest for Protocol Functions for 1Functions for 1stst Document Document
• No Route Reflectors (no IBGP this version)
• No confederations
• No Add/Delete communities
• No 2547 VPNS or multicast
• Route flap damping OFF
• Min Route Advertisement Interval specified
• Min AS Origination Interval specified
38
TopologyTopology
39
Topology mattersTopology matters
• Exchange point topology
• N star topologies meshed for Route Reflection
• Confederations with particular topologies
• IBGP/EBGP mesh overlay
• Building blocks— single link, line, mesh, partial mesh, star, wheel
40
Single link: 1Single link: 1stst Document Document
……
DUT TResTR1
TR2
TRn
n >= 1
line
41
Line Line
DUT
DUT
DUT
TRes
TR1
Longer line
42
MeshMesh
DUT
TRes TR1
DUT
DUT DUT
TRes TResmesh
43
Partial MeshPartial Mesh
DUT
TRes TR1
DUT
DUT DUT
TRes TRes
44
ReferencesReferences
• IETF51 BMWG talk: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/slides/bmwg-4/
• NextHop IETF51 talk: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/slides/bmwg-5/index.html
• Howard’s IETF51 talk: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/slides/bmwg-6/index.html
• Recommendations for flap damping, Ripe 229: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-229.html
• BGP Convergence Terminology ID: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-00.txt
• BGP Convergence Methodology: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgpbas-00.txt
45
Thank Thank YouYou
Questions?
46
Route Mixtures Matter!Route Mixtures Matter!
• The amount, type and composition of the information advertised to the DUT has an impact on the convergence.
• Goal is to provide a baseline of expected performance in today’s network.
• Test different vendor implementations fairly
• Design tests that can be replicated
• Good results require good data
Related Documents
