Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/bgpdepl/bgpdepl-minutes-93jul.txt

Text File | 1993-09-23 | 13KB | 325 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_

Reported by Jessica Yu/Merit

Minutes of the BGP Deployment Working Group (BGPDEPL)

Thanks to Mark Knopper and Bill Manning for taking the notes from which
these minutes were derived.



Overview

Jessica Yu presented a summary of CIDR deployment status.  Several
different efforts are working on CIDR deployment:


   o BGPDEPL Working Group meetings at IETFs
   o BGPDEPL subgroup meeting at INTEROP (March) by Claudio Topolcic
   o NSFNET regional-techs meetings by Merit
   o RIPE Routing Working Group meeting by Tony Bates


CIDR has two major components:  the route aggregation strategy, and the
IP address assignment strategy as described in
draft-fuller-cidr-strategy-03.txt (an update to RFC 1338).

The IP address assignment strategy described in RFC 1466 has been
implemented since the fall of 1992 by IR. Jeff Huston from AARnet
mentioned that non-CIDR compatible IP address assignments have been
handed to Pacific region networks.  Jeff will document the situation and
inform the NIC.

The status of route aggregation implementation is as follows:


   o The CIDR-capable routing protocol specification is done.
   o Software development is underway.
   o An initial deployment plan has been developed.


The following is a list of CIDR-related documents:

   o CIDR spec
      -  draft-fuller-cidr-strategy-03.txt (update to RFC 1338)

   o Addressing
      -  RFC 1466
      -  draft-rekhter-ipaddress-guide-08.txt

   o Deployment
      -  RFC 1367
      -  draft-rekhter-cidr-environment-01.txt
      -  draft-ietf-bgpdepl-minutes-93feb-00.txt
      -  Minutes of BGPDEPL sessions at IETF meetings (July 1992,
         November 1992 and March 1993)
      -  Minutes of Merit NSFNET Regional-Techs meetings

   o Route Aggregation Registry
      -  RFC 1482

   o Other
      -  RFC 1481 (The IAB Statement)



CIDR Deployment

The Current Deployment Plan:  (initial)

 Step 1  --  Deploy BGP4 without aggregation
 Step 2  --  Advertise test aggregated route
 Step 3  --  Aggregate at site level or single policy level, whichever is a
             smaller block
 Step 4  --  Understand more
 Step 5  --  Aggregate more

Steps 4 and 5 are recursive until CIDR is fully implemented.  As soon as
the CIDR software is ready, step 1 could be executed.

The rules for aggregation at initial deployment stage:


   o Aggregate based on manual configuration
   o Proxy aggregation allowed (with agreement of the advertiser)
   o Holes in aggregates allowed
   o IGP/IBGP carry aggregation within a domain
   o Coordination:  bi-lateral and overall
   o Aggregate routing registry


A concern was raised about the merit of IBGP and whether it would be
continuously supported by vendor software.

Dennis Ferguson clarified that IBGP doesn't scale to very large numbers
since it requires a full mesh peering session between all the border
routers within a domain.  On ANS's network, each external router has
over 90 IBGP neighbors.  If an external network is lost, 90
announcements go out.  This results in large overhead when routes flap.
If your network grows big enough you should have something other than
IBGP. Dennis is willing to write a short paper on the usefulness and
limits of IBGP.

Tony Li of cisco stated that running IBGP is currently tractable and
will be supported for a while, though we may consider alternatives for
the future.

It is generally agreed that IBGP is usable in the size of the current
network.  It works on NSF/ANSnet, which has about 90 nodes participating
in IBGP. A typical network has much fewer nodes participating in IBGP.

It was suggested to add another rule of aggregation, i.e.  no network
should aggregate routes without informing other networks.  It was agreed
that the aggregated routes should be registered.  Implementing route
aggregate registry will provide a means of sharing such information.

It was suggested that de-aggregation should not be done at the initial
stage.  Since initially the plan is to only aggregate at site level or a
single policy level, it (hopefully) will not cause too much
inconvenience.  But if it does, the issue would be revisited.

It was also agreed that if a network de-aggregates, those de-aggregated
networks should not be propagated outside the network.  With more
experience gained on aggregation (or de-aggregation), these issues will
be discussed further.

CIDR Capable Software Implementation

Router vendors are asked to respond to the following questions about the
status of software implementation:


  1. Is a CIDR implementation available?
  2. What features are included and what are not?
  3. Which version and where to get them?
  4. Aggregation configuration syntax?
  5. Interoperability test plan?


   o Gated (by Dennis Ferguson)
     ANS gated's BGP4 and aggregation implementation is being debugged
     and will be a beta-release soon.  It is being tested on the NSFNET
     research network as well as in the ANS labs.  It is ready for
     interoperability testing and Dennis will test against all the other
     implementations he can find.
     The code is able to form route aggregates.  Aggregation by proxy is
     supported.  Each route can only contribute to a single aggregate,
     though the aggregate can contribute to a larger aggregate.  Null
     routes to non-existent networks can be installed but needs kernel
     to support it.  No controlled de-aggregation exists in this
     implementation.
     The code is expected to be available in about two weeks.  Dennis
     will create a distribution when it looks like things are working.
     Dale Johnson mentioned that the syntax for the Merit ``Network
     Announcement Change Request'' will allow aggregates.  The syntax
     for aggregates is x.x.x/len where len is the prefix length.

   o 3com (by Arun Arunkumar)
     BGP4 is being tested in the lab, talking to itself and ready to do
     interoperability test with other vendor's code.  The code accepts,
     forwards and manages aggregated routes properly, but does not form
     route aggregates yet.  The current implementation does not support
     controlled de-aggregation but will support it in the future if
     necessary.  This will be released as part of version 6.2 in the
     September-October time frame.  Aggregates could be carried by BGP4
     and OSPF as well.  3com is working on implementing OSPF-BGP
     interaction.  One month's testing is still needed.

   o cisco (by Paul Traina)
     Pre-beta code is available via anonymous FTP from cisco.  Send mail
     to Paul Traina if you intend to use this code, and you will be
     added to the bgp-beta mailing list and told how to get the code.
     BGP4 is currently based on version 9.21 of the router software,
     which is not yet in beta and thus is very ``experimental.''

     The implementation currently carries, advertises, and redistributes
     aggregates, but aggregate generation is still a few weeks off.
     Aggregate configuration uses the new route map feature, for which
     the user interface is not yet stable.  BGP4 will redistribute
     aggregate routes with any routing protocol that carries mask
     information (EIGRP, OSPF, and ISIS). BGP3- and BGP4-OSPF
     interaction and automatic tag stuff is supported.  Controlled
     de-aggregation is not currently supported (and may never be).
     Automatic negotiation is supported for BGP versions 2 through 4.
     The code will be deployed in a few test routers on regional
     networks and is currently going through early field testing.  It is
     ready for interoperability testing (and probably has been tested
     against gated by the time you read this).

   o Proteon (by Ed Stern)
     They are currently testing BGP4, but are not ready for
     interoperability testing.  They are not able to aggregate for the
     first release, but can pass aggregated routes and forward on the
     longest match.  BGP can exchange routes between all other
     protocols.  BGP and EGP can run simultaneously.

   o Wellfleet (by John Kraczyk)
     Release 7.60 is going into beta next month.  This version contains
     BGP3, which also implements OSPF-BGP interaction.
     A beta version of CIDR/BGP4 will hopefully be available sometime in
     early 1994.  Plans include accepting, forwarding, and forming
     aggregates (also proxy), OSPF-BGP4 interaction, and possibly OSPF
     LSA type 8.  Some form of controlled de-aggregation will also be
     included.  Interoperability testing will be done when the
     implementation is closer.

   o EuropaNET (by Peder Chr)
     EuropaNET is working on implementation of BGP4.  The Megaswitch is
     used, which is a custom router.


InterOperability Test

Tony Li requested feedback on BGP4 interoperability tests that so he can
update his interoperability matrix for BGP and send it to the list.

Yakov suggested running a virtual DMZ for BGP testing, i.e.  to
establish remote BGP4 sessions between BGP4 test boxes at different
locations on the net.

Route Aggregation Registry

Mark Knopper presented a syntax to register route aggregates in the
NSFNET policy routing database.  It is written in RFC 1842, and comments
and suggestions are welcome.

Mark Knopper also presented a summary of the discussion at the NSFNET
regional-techs meeting held June 10-11, 1993.  The transcript of Mark's
presentation, and other presentations, given at the Merit meeting can be
obtained via FTP from merit.edu:/pub/nsfnet/regional-techs.


CIDR Analysis

It was suggested to do a CIDR analysis to evaluate CIDR's impact on the
lifetime of IPv4.  The IAB chartered this working group to write a paper
to include such an analysis.  The group suggested that the following
areas be included in the analysis.


   o CIDR impact on the routing table growth
   o CIDR impact on the rate of IP address space depletion
   o The rate of use of IP address space
   o Impact of policy (AUP) on CIDR efficiency


The following people volunteered to work together to produce this
analysis paper:  Peter Ford, Dale Johnson, Tony Li, Bill Manning and
Yakov Rekhter.  Peter Ford agreed to take a lead on this.  The paper
should be ready by September 1993, before the IAB meeting takes place.

There was also a discussion about renumbering hosts to make better use
of the assigned IP address space and increase the efficiency of
aggregation.  Peter Ford observed that lots of assigned Class B
addresses have only 50 or so hosts on it, leaving the rest of the space
unused.  It was agreed that autoconfiguration could be of great help to
renumbering.  It was also suggested that it does not hurt to study the
renumbering process with currently available technology.  John Kraczyk
mentioned that Wellfleet manually renumbered its network recently.  He
will document the process as a case study.


Attendees

Arun Arunkumar           [e-mail]
Toshiya Asaba            [e-mail]
Tony Bates               [e-mail]
Rebecca Bostwick         [e-mail]
Ronald Broersma          [e-mail]
Thomas Brunner           [e-mail]
Henry Clark              [e-mail]
David Conrad             [e-mail]
Tom Easterday            [e-mail]
Deborah Estrin           [e-mail]
Stefan Fassbender        [e-mail]
Mark Fedor               [e-mail]
Peter Ford               [e-mail]
Vince Fuller             [e-mail]
Craig Haney              [e-mail]
Frank Hoffmann           [e-mail]
Geoff Huston             [e-mail]
David Jacobson           [e-mail]
Dale Johnson             [e-mail]
Anders Karlsson          [e-mail]
Daniel Karrenberg        [e-mail]
Sean Kennedy             [e-mail]
Lothar Klein             [e-mail]
Rajeev Kochhar           [e-mail]
Mark Kosters             [e-mail]
John Krawczyk            [e-mail]
Tony Li                  [e-mail]
Susan Lin                [e-mail]
Robin Littlefield        [e-mail]
Peter Lothberg           [e-mail]
Bill Manning             [e-mail]
Jun Matsukata            [e-mail]
Keith Mitchell           [e-mail]
Jun Murai                [e-mail]
Peder Chr.  Noergaard    [e-mail]
Michael O'Dell           [e-mail]
David O'Leary            [e-mail]
Andrew Partan            [e-mail]
Michael Patton           [e-mail]
Juergen Rauschenbach     [e-mail]
Yakov Rekhter            [e-mail]
Robert Reschly           [e-mail]
Duncan Rogerson          [e-mail]
Ulla Sandberg            [e-mail]
Miguel Sanz              [e-mail]
John Scudder             [e-mail]
Tim Seaver               [e-mail]
Henk Steenman            [e-mail]
Ed Stern                 [e-mail]
John Stewart             [e-mail]
Marten Terpstra          [e-mail]
Claudio Topolcic         [e-mail]
Paul Traina              [e-mail]
Willem van der Scheun    [e-mail]
Ruediger Volk            [e-mail]
Sam Wilson               [e-mail]
Wilfried Woeber          [e-mail]
Jessica Yu               [e-mail]
Paul Zawada              [e-mail]