home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1993
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (1993).iso
/
inet
/
internet-drafts
/
draft-rekhter-direct-provider-00.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-10-26
|
19KB
|
506 lines
- 1 -
Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
INTERNET DRAFT T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp.
<draft-rekhter-direct-provider-00.txt> October 1993
Selecting a Direct Provider
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
``working draft'' or ``work in progress.''
Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the
internet-drafts Shadow Directories on nic.ddn.mil, nnsc.nsf.net,
nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or munnari.oz.au to learn the
current status of any Internet Draft.
1 Introduction
Within the existing Internet routing architecture/protocols different
hosts within a domain (autonomous system) usually can't control the
choice of adjacent domains for forwarding of the inter-domain traffic
originated by the hosts. In this document we describe a simple
mechanism that provides hosts with such control. The proposed scheme
can be realised with the existing technology, off-the shelf
components, and minor tweaking of forwarding algorithm by border
routers. The scheme doesn't require any new routing protocols.
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 1]
- 2 -
2 Background
The Internet is viewed as a set of arbitrary interconnected
Autonomous Systems (Domains). An autonomous system that carries
transit traffic is called a service provider (or just a provider). An
autonomous system that uses other autonomous system(s) to carry
locally originated traffic is called a service subscriber (or just a
subscriber). A provider that has an external neighbor (in the
BGP/IDRP sense) with one of the BGP/IDRP speakers within a subscriber
is called the direct provider (with respect to the subscriber). All
other providers are called indirect (with respect to the subscriber).
Routers that participate in inter-domain routing are called Border
Routers or Border Intermediate Systems (BISs).
Within the current Internet routing the choice of routes available to
a host within a subscriber is limited to the routes selected by the
BISs within the subscriber. Consequently, a route available from a
direct provider, but not selected by the BISs within the subscriber
can't be made available to a host within the subscriber.
As an illustration of this limitation consider the following
topology:
H1 B
\ / \
\ / \
\ / \
D A
/ \ /
/ \ /
/ \ /
/ \/
H2 C
where A is a BIS that belong to domain RD-A, B is a BIS that belongs
to domain RD-B, C is a BIS that belongs to domain RD-C, and D is a
BIS that belongs to domain RD-D. H1 and H2 are two hosts in RD-D. D
has to select between B and C as the next hop domain (BIS) to
destinations in RD-A. Consequently, hosts within RD-D, H1 and H2,
would be bounded by the D's choices. If H1 would prefer to use route
to destinations in RD-A going through B, and H2 would prefer to use
route to destinations in RD-A going through C, then superficially one
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 2]
- 3 -
would conclude that such route selection can't be satisfied within
the current Internet routing. The following shows that such a
conclusion is incorrect.
3 Solving the problem
The problem of removing the limit of choices imposed on hosts within
a subscriber by subscriber's BISs can be decomposed into three
orthogonal, but somewhat related subproblems:
- how a BIS within a subscriber that is connected to a particular
direct provider learns about routes offered by the provider
- how a router within a subscriber discovers a BIS that is
connected to a particular direct provider - how to find a
correct exit BIS
- how to ensure forwarding within the subscriber that is
consistent with the host's preference of the direct provider
This document assumes that each provider has a globally unambiguous
identifier that can be used both for the purpose of distributing
routing information and for the purpose of packet forwarding.
Furthermore, the document assumes that the autonomous system number
(AS number) is used as such an identifier.
3.1 How a BIS discovers routes offered by a direct provider
With BGP/IDRP ([1], [2]) a BIS stores the routes received from an
external neighbor in the Adj-RIB-In (adjacency Routing Information
Base input) associated with the neighbor. For each external neighbor
the BIS also knows the AS number of the provider the neighbor is in.
Therefore, for each direct provider that has an external neighbor
with a BIS, the BIS has sufficient information about the routes
offered by the provider, as well as the provider's identifier (AS
number).
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 3]
- 4 -
3.2 How to find a correct exit BIS
A BIS that is connected to a particular provider needs to pass the
information about this connectivity to other BISs within its domain.
This is accomplished by generating and propagating (via BGP/IDRP) to
all of the BIS's internal neighbors (in BGP/IDRP sense) a route whose
AS-PATH (RD-PATH) path attribute contains only the AS number of the
provider and whose NLRI may be either empty or embeds the AS number.
The choice of empty NLRI is determined by a particular routing
protocol (whether the protocol allows to carry AS-PATH (RD-PATH), but
no NLRI). Since this route is distributed to all the BISs within the
subscriber, any BIS within the subscriber can identify a BIS that has
an external neighbor within a particular direct provider.
The situation is a bit more complex for routers within the subscriber
that are not BISs (they don't participate in BGP/IDRP). We suggest
two possible schemes.
Option 1:
The first option requires the BIS that has an external neighbor
with a particular provider to generate an intra-domain route to
a destination that unambiguously identifies the AS number of
the provider. The Network Layer Reachability Information
(NLRI) of such a route can be constructed by by embedding the
AS number in an IP address.
Option 2:
The second option assumes that routers within a subscriber that
don't participate in BGP/IDRP have a default route pointing to
particular BISs (this default route may be either static or
dynamic). Such a route would result in forwarding a packet
whose destination is outside the subscriber to one of the BISs
within the subscriber. Once the packet reaches the BIS, the BIS
determines an appropriate exit BIS using information received
via BGP/IDRP.
To provide correct operations it is essential that there be a
consistent scheme for embedding AS numbers into IP addresses. A
possible scheme for doing this is suggested in SDRP [3], where an AS
number is embedded in the lower two octets of the 128.0.0.0 IP
network number. For example, AS number 233 is encoded as 128.0.0.233.
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 4]
- 5 -
3.3 How to provide consistent forwarding
Providing forwarding that takes into account direct provider
preferences requires an additional mechanism. This is because routes
selected by BISs within a subscriber may not be consistent with the
preferences of a particular host within the subscriber. The mechanism
should be able to identify the host's preference for the purpose of
packet forwarding.
In this document we assume that a packet may carry certain explicit
information that identifies a particular provider. In general, this
information can be carried as either an IP option or via an
encapsulation. This document assumes the use of encapsulation, such
as SDRP [3] or GRE [4].
When a host originates a packet, and the host has a certain
preference with respect to a particular direct provider, the host
needs to indicate this preference. The host can indicate it either
by itself or by relying on some proxy agent (e.g. first hop router).
To indicate the preference for a particular direct provider the
packet is encapsulated (by either the originating host, or by its
proxy agent) and the destination address in the outer header embeds
the AS number of the provider.
If the information about direct providers is distributed via intra-
domain routing (Option 1 in Section 3.2), then the packet will be
forwarded via intra-domain routing procedures to the correct exit
BIS. The exit BIS will use the destination address in the outer
header to determine the direct provider. The BIS then will
decapsulate the packet and will use the destination address in the
inner header of the packet to determine whether the Adj-RIB-In
associated with the provider has a route to the destination specified
in the original packet. If such a route exists, then the BIS will
forward the packet to the neighbor associated with the Adj-RIB-In.
Otherwise, the original packet will be forwarded using BIS's FIB
(using normal forwarding procedures). The BIS may generate an ICMP
Destination Unreachable message back to the entity that performed the
encapsulation ( either the host that originated the packet, or its
proxy agent) to indicate that the route through the provider desired
by the host is unavailable.
If the information about direct providers is not distributed via
intra-domain routing (Option 2 in Section 3.2), then the packet will
be forwarded via a default route to one of the BISs within the
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 5]
- 6 -
subscriber. If that BIS happen to be a correct exit BIS (the BIS
peers with an external neighbor, such that the neighbor belongs to
the provider indicated by the packet), then the BIS will operate as
described in the previous paragraph. Otherwise, the packet will be
encapsulated one more time with the destination address in the outer
header indicating the correct exit BIS. Once the packet reaches the
correct exit BIS, the outer header will be stripped and the remaining
processing will be performed precisely as described in the previous
paragraph.
This document assumes that within a subscriber that offers support
for direct provider selection all the BISs trap packets whose
destination indicates embedded provider identifier (AS number) and
decapsulate these packets before forwarding them to external
neighbors.
If a BIS receives a packet whose destination indicates embedded
provider identifier, and the BIS determines that the provider is not
a direct provider of the subscriber the BIS is in, the BIS should
generate an ICMP Destination Unreachable message to the entity that
performed the encapsulation (either the host that originated the
packet or some proxy agent acting on behalf of the host). The entity
should use this message as an indication that the selected provider
is unavailable.
A host (or its proxy agent) is not required to maintain information
about all the direct providers of the subscriber the host is in. If a
host (or its proxy agent) specifies a provider that is not a direct
provider of the subscriber, then packets originated by the host (or
its proxy agent) will be forwarded based on the choices of the direct
provider made by the BISs within the subscriber.
When a host (or its proxy agent) receives an ICMP Destination
Unreachable message indicating unavailability of the route through a
particular provider, the host (or its proxy agent) should either
change its selected provider or should stop using direct provider
selection mechanism altogether.
3.4 An example of operations
We illustrate how the proposed scheme operates using the topology
described in Section 2. Assume that D prefers routes through B to
destinations in A, but when connectivity to B fails or B doesn't have
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 6]
- 7 -
routes to destinations in A, D would switch to routes through C. The
routes selected by D are consistent with H1's choices for the direct
provider (use B as a primary, use C as a fallback), but are in
conflict with H2's choices for the direct provider (use C as a
primary, use B as a fallback). To satisfy H2's preferences for the
direct provider, H2 encapsulates its outgoing packets, such that the
destination address in the outer header embeds C's AS number. When
such a packet reaches D, D uses the destination address to identify
the Adj-RIB-In associated with C, performs decapsulation, and then
checks whether the Adj-RIB-In has a route to the destination
specified in the inner header. If such a route exists, then the
packet is forwarded to C. Otherwise, the packet is forwarded using
D's FIB, which results in forwarding the packet to B.
If the connectivity between C and A is present, then D will forward
the packets originated by H2 through C. When the connectivity is
disrupted the D's Adj-RIB-In that is associated with C will not have
a route to destinations in A, so D will forward the packets through
B. In this case D will generate an ICMP Destination Unreachable
message back to H2. H2 is expected to use this message as an
indication that route through the selected provider is unavailable.
To illustrate how the proposed scheme operates when a host selects a
provider who is not a direct provider of the subscriber the host is
in, assume that H2 selects X as its direct provider. In this case H2
will receive an ICMP Destination Unreachable message either from a
BIS or from some other router within the subscriber, and should use
this message as an indication that no route through the selected
provider (X) is available.
4 Multiple preferences
A host (or its proxy agent) may have preferences for more than one
direct provider. The list of such preferences may be either ordered
(first try direct provider X, if that is impossible then try direct
provider Y, etc...), or unordered (try a direct provider X, but if
not available pick at random another provider from the list). The
proposed scheme doesn't allow to simultaneously specify multiple
choices for direct providers. That is, a packet contains identity of
only one preferred provider. The host (or its proxy agent) relies on
the ICMP Destination Unreachable messages to determine the
feasibility of using the direct provider selected by the host.
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 7]
- 8 -
5 Limitations
The proposed scheme supports only a "soft" selection. That is, if a
route through a selected provider isn't available, or the selected
provider is not a direct provider of the subscriber the host is in,
the subscriber will use its selected direct provider.
This proposal doesn't distinguish between the case where a host
selects a provider who is not a direct provider of the subscriber the
host is in, and the case where a host selects a direct provider, but
there is no route through that provider.
While the proposed solution may be suitable to solve other problems,
such a discussion is outside the scope of this document.
Specifically, suitability of the proposed solution to an arbitrary
policy-based routing problem (a.k.a. "arbitrary internet" (AI)
problem) is outside the scope of this document.
6 Conclusions
This document describes how the existing routing protocols combined
with encapsulation and minor changes to forwarding algorithm can be
used to solve the problem of direct provider selection. It provides
the same dynamic rerouting capabilities as available with the
existing routing architecture/protocols. The scheme doesn't require
introduction of any new routing protocols and/or new network layer
protocol - it is based pretty much on existing off-the-shelf
components.
The functionality provided by the scheme described in the document is
quite similar to the "long-distance" provider selection available in
today's telephony, where a caller (host) can either use the long-
distance carrier (direct provider) selected by the RBOC the caller is
attached to, or may explicitly indicate its preference for a
particular long long-distance carrier. The scheme may be used in
similar circumstances to enable "long-distance" provider selection
functionality in the Internet.
While the scheme is described in terms of IP, it can be directly
applicable to other existing connectionless network layer protocols,
like CLNP.
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 8]
- 9 -
6 Acknowledgements
This proposal was largely stimulated by discussions with Robert
Brenner (GTE) and Peter Ford (LANL).
The author would like to express his deep thanks and appreciation to
Susan Hares (MERIT), Tony Li (cisco Systems), and Jessica Yu (MERIT)
for their review and constructive comments.
References
[1] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., `A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)',
Internet Draft, April 1993
[2] Hares, S., `IDRP for IP', Internet Draft, March 1993
[3] Estrin, D., Zappala, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., "Source Demand
Routing: Packet Format and Forwarding Specification (Version 1)"
Internet Draft, September 1993
[4] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., Traina, P., "Generic Routing
Encapsulation (GRE)", Internet Draft, September 1993
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Author's Addresses
Yakov Rekhter
T.J. Watson Research Center IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Phone: (914) 945-3896
email: yakov@watson.ibm.com
Expiration Date April 1994 [Page 9]