1 / 37

BANANAS: An Evolutionary Framework for Explicit and Multipath Routing in the Internet

5. 3. 5. 2. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 2. 1. A. B. E. F. C. D. BANANAS: An Evolutionary Framework for Explicit and Multipath Routing in the Internet. Hema T. Kaur, Shiv Kalyanaraman, Andreas Weiss, Shifalika Kanwar, Ayesha Gandhi Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

pillan
Download Presentation

BANANAS: An Evolutionary Framework for Explicit and Multipath Routing in the Internet

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 5 3 5 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 A B E F C D BANANAS: An Evolutionary Framework for Explicit and Multipath Routing in the Internet Hema T. Kaur, Shiv Kalyanaraman, Andreas Weiss, Shifalika Kanwar, Ayesha Gandhi Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute hema@networks.ecse.rpi.edu, shivkuma@ecse.rpi.edu http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma

  2. Acknowledgements • Biplab Sikdar (faculty colleague) • Mehul Doshi (MS) • Niharika Mateti (MS) • Also thanks to: • Satish Raghunath (PhD) • Jayasri Akella (PhD) • Hemang Nagar (MS) • Work funded in part by Intel Corp and DARPA-ITO, NMS Program. Contract number: F30602-00-2-0537

  3. TE Spectrum … Shortest Path MPLS Signaled TE BANANAS-TE The Question • Can we emulate a subset of MPLS properties without signaling in existing connectionless routing protocols? • Key: Can we do source routing ? • without signaling • without variable (and large) per-packet overhead • being backward compatible with OSPF & BGP • allowing incremental network upgrades

  4. Links AB and BD are overloaded Links AC and CD are overloaded B 1 1 2 B B A 1 1 D 1 4 E 2 2 1 2 A C D D E E 1 2 Can not do this with OSPF 1 2 A C C Why cannot we do it today? • Connectionless TE today uses a parametric approach: • Eg: changing link weights in OSPF, IS-IS or parameters of BGP-4 (LOCAL_PREF, MED etc) • Performance limited by the single shortest/policy path • Alt: Connection-oriented/signaled approach (eg: MPLS) • Complex to extend MPLS-TE across multiple areas. • Not a solution for inter-AS issues. • MPLS also needs the support of all the nodes along the path

  5. IP IP IP IP Label 0 120 1321 MPLS Signaling and Forwarding Model • MPLS label is swapped at each hop along the LSP • Labels = LOCAL IDENTIFIERS … • Signaling maps global identifiers (addresses, path spec) to local identifiers Seattle New York (Egress) 5 San Francisco (Ingress) 1321 120 Miami

  6. Seattle 5 New York (Egress) 4 4 18 IP 27 3 10 San Francisco (Ingress) 1 9 Miami 5 IP IP IP IP 27 36 0 PathId Global Path Identifiers • Instead of using local path identifiers (labels in MPLS), consider the use of global path identifiers

  7. IP IP PathId(i,j) PathId(1,j) Global Path Identifier: Key Ideas j 2 k wm w2 i w1 m-1 1 Key ideas: 1. Swap/process global pathids hop-by-hop instead of local labels! 2. Avoid inefficient encoding (IP) or signaling (MPLS) 3. Onlyupgraded nodes need to locally compute a subset of valid PathIDs.

  8. j 2 wm w2 i w1 m-1 1 k Path suffix Global Path Identifier (continued) • Path = {i, w1, 1, w2, 2, …, wk, k, wk+1, … , wm, j} • Sequence of globally known node IDs & Link weights • Global Path ID is a hash of this sequence => locally computable without the need for signaling! • Potential hash functions: • [j, { h(1) + h(2) + …+h(k)+ … +h(m-1)} mod 2b ]: node ID sum • MD5 one-way hash, XOR (eg: LIRA), 32-bit CRC etc… • Canonical method: MD5 hashing of the subsequence of nodeIDs followed by a CRC-32 to get a 32-bit hash value (MD5+CRC) • Low collision (i.e. non-uniqueness) probability • Different PathID encodings have different architectural implications

  9. PathID SuffixPathID H{k, k+1, … , m-1} H{k+1, … , m-1} j 2 wm w2 i w1 m-1 1 k Path suffix Abstract Forwarding Paradigm • Forwarding table (Eg; at Node k): • [Destination Prefix, ]  [Next-Hop, ] • [j, ]  [k+1, ] • Incoming Packet Hdr: Destination address (j) & PathID = H{k, k+1, … , m-1} • Outgoing Packet Hdr: [j, PathID =H{k+1, … , m-1} ] • Longest prefix match + exact label match + label swap! • PathID mismatch => map to shortest (default) path, and set PathID = 0 • No signaling because of globally meaningful pathIDs!

  10. 27 IP IP IP IP IP IP 27 36 0 0 5 PathId BANANAS TE: Explicit, Multi-Path Forwarding • Explicit source-directed routing: Not limited by the shortest path nature of IGP • Different PathIds => different next-hops (multi-paths) • No signaling required to set-up the paths • Traffic mapping is decoupled from route discovery Seattle 5 New York (Egress) 4 4 18 IP 3 10 San Francisco (Ingress) 1 9 Miami 5

  11. IP IP IP IP IP IP 27 27 27 0 0 5 BANANAS TE: Partial Deployment • Only “red” routers are upgraded • Non-upgraded routers forward everything on the shortest path (default path): forming a “virtual hop” Seattle 5 New York (Egress) 4 4 28 IP 27 30 10 San Francisco (Ingress) 1 9 1 X 2 Miami 3 1

  12. Simplistic Route Computation Strategy: All-Paths Under Partial Upgrades • Assume 1-bit in LSA’s to advertise that an upgraded router is “multi-path capable” (MPC) • Two phase algorithm: (assume m upgraded nodes) • 1. (N-m) Dijkstra’s for non-upgraded nodes or one all-pairs shortest path (Floyd Warshall) • 2. DFS to discover valid paths to destinations. • Explore all neighbors of upgraded nodes • Explore only shortest-path next-hop of non-upgraded nodes • Visited bit set to avoid loops • Computes all possible valid paths under PU constraints in a fully distributed manner (global consistency)

  13. Simulation/Implementation/Testing Platforms MIT’s Click Modular Router On Linux: Forwarding Plane Modular Router Utah’s Emulab Testbed: Experiments with Linux/Zebra/Click implementation SSFnet Simulation for OSPF/BGP Dynamics

  14. Zebra/Click Implementation on Linux (Tested on Utah Emulab) • Part of table at node1: (PathID= Link Weights, for simplicity) 75 13 3 9 6 21 4 53 45 51 83 3 4 1 2 7 93 38 67 51 5 67 5 10 8

  15. SSFnet Simulation Results A B E C D Flat OSPF Area, 19 Nodes; Only 3 Active-MPC nodes

  16. 5 3 5 2 1 2 3 A D F B C E 1 2 2 1 Refinement 1: Heterogeneous Route Computation • Goal: Upgraded nodes (eg: A, D, E) can use any route computation algorithm, so long as it computes the shortest (default) path! • Eg: k shortest-paths from a given source s to each vertex in the graph, in total time O(E + V log V + kV): lower complexity than AP-PU • Issue: Forwarding for k-shortest paths may not exist • Need to validate the forwarding availability for paths!

  17. Two-Phase Path Validation Algorithm • Concept: Forwarding for path exists only if the forwarding for each of its suffixes exists. • Phase 1 (cont’d): • compute {k-shortest} paths for all other upgraded nodes, and 1-shortest paths for non-upgraded nodes. • Sort computed paths by hopcount • Phase 2: Validate paths starting from hopcount = 1. • All 1-hop paths valid. • p-hop paths valid if the (p-1)-hop path suffix is valid • Throw out invalid paths as they are found • Polynomial complexity to discover all valid paths in the network & validation can be done in the background • Validation algorithm correct by mathematical induction

  18. OSPF LSA Extensions

  19. Linux/Zebra/Emulab Results B D C Flat OSPF Area, 3 Active-MPC nodes; Upto k-shortest, validated paths

  20. PathID = concatenation of well-known local link ID hashes Globally-known link IDs can be locally hashed using a well-known function (eg: link ID index) Refinement 2: Index-based PathID Encoding • Issue: increase in computation/storage complexity at upgraded nodes • Question: Can we move complexity to the network “edges” and simplify “core” nodes ? • Ans: YES! • The key is to consider an alternative, global PathID encoding

  21. Why is the Index-based Encoding Interesting? • Ans: Architectural flexibility and simplification • Core (interior) nodes: • Forwarding function dramatically simplified • Minimal state (only the index table) • No control-plane computation complexity at interior nodes • Edge nodes: • Path validation dramatically simplified • Edge-nodes can store an arbitrary subset of validated paths • Heterogeneous route computation algorithms can be used

  22. Index-Based Forwarding Example

  23. Area 1 Area 2 5 Area 0 1 1 3 2 5 5 4 1 2 3 1 7 4 A H D G J B C I ABR1 ABR3 ABR4 ABR2 ABR5 2 1 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 2 Multiple Areas Red nodes: upgraded Green nodes: regular • PathID re-initialized after crossing area boundaries • Eg: From node A (area 1) to node I (area 2) • Available paths: A-B-C-ABR1-area2, A-B-C-ABR2-area2 etc • When the packet reaches area2, ABR3 may choose one of many paths to reach I. Eg: ABR3-H-I, ABR3-J-I, ABR3-H-G-I etc • Source-routing notion similar to, but weaker than PNNI

  24. Inter-domain TE • Outbound TE: • Multi-exit (or Explicit-exit) routing • Useful to manage peering vs transitcosts • Goal: fine-grained traffic engineering policy • BANANAS Hash = (Exit ASBR, destination address) • Forwarding paradigm: Connectionless tunneling thru the AS • Inbound TE: • NOT ADDRESSED DIRECTLY • Multi-AS-Path or Explicit AS-Path routing: • Framework similar to IGP: e-PathID concept

  25. Upgrade selected EBGP and IBGP routers • All BGP routers synchronize on the default policy route to every destination prefix (as usual) • Only upgraded IBGP routers and EBGP routers synchronize on a set of exits for chosen prefixes • Upgraded IBGP routers can independently choose any exit without further synchronization with other BGP nodes BGP Explicit-Exit Routing: Route Selection • Explicit-Exit routing is easier than Explicit-Path Routing • Only the “source” and “exit” nodes need upgrades ! • Explicit exit routing easily extended to “multi-exit” routing

  26. When a packet matches the explicit route (policy definable): • Push its destination address into an Address Stack field • Replace destination address with Exit-ASBR address. • Emulates 1-levellabel-stacking (I.e. tunneling) • Exit-ASBR simply swaps back the destination address, before regular IP lookup => popping the stack BGP Explicit-Exit Routing: Forwarding • IBGP locally installs explicit & default exits for chosen prefix • Dest-Prefix Exit-ASBR Next-Hop • Dest-Prefix Default-Next-Hop • Next-hop refers to the IGP next hop to reach Exit-ASBR • Default-Next-Hop: regular IBGP function

  27. AS2 ASBR1 ASBR4 AS4 Dest. d ABR2 ASBR2 ABR1 AS3 ASBR3 AS1 Explicit-Exit Routing Example • Default (AS Path , Exit) to d = (1-3-4, ASBR3) • Now, ABR1 can have explicit exits ASBR4 (implied ASPath = 1-2-4), ASBR2 (implied ASPath =1-3-4) as well!!

  28. AS0 AS2 ASBR1 AS4 Dest. d ASBR2 AS3 AS1 ASBR3 Inter-AS Explicit AS-Path Choice • Allow AS0 to explicitly choose an AS-PATH: e.g. 0-1-2-4 or 0-1-3-4, • Explicit AS-Path choice encoded as an e-PathID= Hash{1,2,4} • e-PathID is updated only when the packet leaves the AS at Exit border routers. • At ASBR1, this explicit AS-path choice is mapped to an exit ASBR. • Within an upgraded AS, the packet is tunneled using the routing header as explained earlier. • Only selected EBGP nodes need be upgraded & synchronized

  29. AS5 3 AS-paths to “d” (0 4) (0 3 4) (0 5 4) AS2 AS0 ASBR2 ASBR1 AS4 Dest. d 1 AS-path or 3 AS-paths to “d”?? AS1 AS3 iBG-1 iBG-3 Re-advertisements of Multi-AS-Paths • Issue: in path-vector algorithms, without re-advertisements (of a subset of paths), remote AS’s cannot see the availability of multiple paths • But, re-advertisements adds control traffic overhead • An AS may choose to re-advertise only, and not support multi-path forwarding (I.e. interpreting e-PathID or Address Stack fields)

  30. Putting It Together: Integrated OSPF/BGP Simulation

  31. E-PathID Processing

  32. Blow-up of AS2’s Internal Topology

  33. FORWARDING Table in AS2 (node#5) Corresponding Changes in Packet Headers

  34. ISP-1 Internet . . . AS1 ISP-n Future: Exploiting Multiplicity In The Internet Phone modem USB/802.11a/b 802.11a Firewire/802.11a/b WiFi (802.11b) Ethernet

  35. Exploiting Multiplicity… • Unlike telephony, data networking can get statistical multiplexing gains from simultaneously using: • Multiple transmission modes (802.11a/b, 3G etc) • Multiple exits (USB, Firewire, Ethernet, modem) • Multiple paths (routes) • Lightweight distributed QoS on each path • Eg: OverQoS (UCB) or Closed-loop QoS (Dave Harrison’s work) • Scavenge performance from this path diversity to meet requirements of high-quality multimedia apps! • BANANAS concepts are generic • Can be applied for intra-domain, inter-domain, overlay routing, or ad-hoc peer-to-peer routing

  36. “Slow” path “Fast” path P I Eg: Multipath MPEG using Multi-band 802.11a/b Community Wireless Networks

  37. Signaled TE BANANAS-TE Summary • TE: “TowardsBetter routing performance”: • Key: Decoupling route availabilityand setup issues from traffic mapping issues, without signaling • BANANAS-TE can leverage the rich interconnectivity and multi-homed nature of the Internet, with manageable increase in complexity • Applicable to OSPF, BGP, geographical routing, large-scale overlay networks; tested on Emulab, SSFnet • Currently deploying BANANAS on Planetlab, a community wireless network in Troy, NY and in p2p streaming/videoconferencing TE spectrum … Shortest Path MPLS

More Related