Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable
draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable
Network Working Group C. Pelsser
Internet-Draft R. Bush
Intended status: Standards Track Internet Initiative Japan
Expires: April 14, 2014 K. Patel
Cisco Systems
P. Mohapatra
Cumulus Systems, Inc.
O. Maennel
Loughborough University
October 11, 2013
Making Route Flap Damping Usable
draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-04
Abstract
Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed to reduce BGP churn in
routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for
being well-connected because topological richness amplifies the
number of update messages exchanged. Many operators have turned RFD
off. Based on experimental measurement, this document recommends
adjusting a few RFD algorithmic constants and limits, to reduce the
high risks with RFD, with the result being damping a non-trivial
amount of long term churn without penalizing well-behaved prefixes'
normal convergence process.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] only when they
appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed
case as English words, without normative meaning.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Pelsser, et al. Expires April 14, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Making Route Flap Damping Usable October 2013
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. RFD Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Suppress Threshold Versus Churn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Maximum Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Suggested Reading
It is assumed that the reader understands BGP, [RFC4271] and Route
Flap Damping, [RFC2439]. This work is based on the measurements in
the paper [pelsser2011]. A survey of Japanese operators' use of RFD
and their desires is reported in
[I-D.shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey].
2. Introduction
Pelsser, et al. Expires April 14, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Making Route Flap Damping Usable October 2013
Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed (see [ripe178] and
[RFC2439]) and subsequently implemented to reduce BGP churn in
routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for
being well-connected because topological richness amplifies the
number of update messages exchanged, see [mao2002]. Subsequently,
many operators turned RFD off, see [ripe378]. Based on the
measurements of [pelsser2011], [ripe580] now recommends that RFD is
usable with some changes to the parameters. Based on the same
measurements, this document recommends adjusting a few RFD
algorithmic constants and limits, with the result being damping of a
non-trivial amount of long term churn without penalizing well-behaved
prefixes' normal convergence process.
Very few prefixes are responsible for a large amount of the BGP
messages received by a router, see [huston2006] and [pelsser2011].
For example, the measurements in [pelsser2011] showed that only 3% of
the prefixes were responsible for 36% percent of the BGP messages at
a router with real feeds from a Tier-1 and an Internet Exchange Point
during a one week experiment. Only these very frequently flapping
prefixes should be damped. The values recommended in Section 6
achieve this. Thus, RFD can be enabled, and some churn reduced.
The goal is to, with absolutely minimal change, ameliorate the danger
of current RFD implementations and use. It is not a panacea, nor is
it a deep and thorough approach to flap reduction.
3. RFD Parameters
The following RFD parameters are common to all implementations. Some
may be tuned by the operator, some not. There is currently no
consensus on a single set of default values.
+-------------------------+----------+-------+---------+
| Parameter | Tunable? | Cisco | Juniper |
+-------------------------+----------+-------+---------+
| Withdrawal | No | 1000 | 1000 |
| Re-Advertisement | No | 0 | 1000 |
| Attribute Change | No | 500 | 500 |
| Suppress Threshold | Yes | 2000 | 3000 |
| Half-Life (min) | Yes | 15 | 15 |
| Reuse Threshold | Yes | 750 | 750 |
| Max Suppress Time (min) | Yes | 60 | 60 |
+-------------------------+----------+-------+---------+
Default RFD Paramaters of Juniper and Cisco
Table 1
Pelsser, et al. Expires April 14, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Making Route Flap Damping Usable October 2013
4. Suppress Threshold Versus Churn
By turning RFD back on with the values recommended in Section 6 churn
is reduced. Moreover, with these values, prefixes going through
normal convergence are generally not damped.
[pelsser2011] estimates that, with a suppress threshold of 6,000, the
BGP update rate is reduced by 19% compared to a situation without RFD
enabled. With this 6,000 suppress threshold, 90% fewer prefixes are
damped compared to use of a 2,000 threshold. I.e. far fewer well-
behaved prefixes are damped.
Setting the suppress threshold to 12,000 leads to very few damped
prefixes (1.7% of the prefixes damped with a threshold of 2,000, in
the experiments in [pelsser2011] yielding an average hourly update
reduction of 11% compared to not using RFD.
+-----------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------+
| Suppress | Damped | % of Table | Update Rate |
| Threshold | Instances | Damped | (one hour bins) |
+-----------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------+
| 2,000 | 43342 | 13.16% | 53.11% |
| 4,000 | 11253 | 3.42% | 74.16% |
| 6,000 | 4352 | 1.32% | 81.03% |
| 8,000 | 2104 | 0.64% | 84.85% |
| 10,000 | 1286 | 0.39% | 87.12% |
| 12,000 | 720 | 0.22% | 88.74% |
| 14,000 | 504 | 0.15% | 89.97% |
| 16,000 | 353 | 0.11% | 91.01% |
| 18,000 | 311 | 0.09% | 91.88% |
| 20,000 | 261 | 0.08% | 92.69% |
+-----------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------+
Damped Prefixes vs. Churn, from [pelsser2011]. Note overly-
aggressive current default Suppress Threshold
Table 2
5. Maximum Penalty
It is important to understand that the parameters shown in Table 1,
and the implementation's sampling rate, impose an upper bound on the
penalty value, which we can call the 'computed maximum penalty'.
In addition, BGP implementations have an internal constant which we
will call the 'maximum penalty' which the current computed penalty
may not exceed.
Pelsser, et al. Expires April 14, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Making Route Flap Damping Usable October 2013
6. Recommendations
Use of the following values is recommended:
Router Maximum Penalty: The internal constant for the maximum
penalty value MUST be raised to at least 50,000.
Default Configurable Parameters: In order not to break existing
operational configurations, existing BGP implementations
including, the examples in Table 1, SHOULD NOT change their
default values.
Minimum Suppress Threshold: Operators wishing damping which is much
less destructive than current, but still somewhat aggressive
SHOULD configure the Suppress Threshold to no less than 6,000.
Conservative Suppress Threshold: Conservative operators SHOULD
configure the Suppress Threshold to no less than 12,000.
Calculate But Do Not Damp: Implementations MAY have a test mode
where the operator could see the results of a particular
configuration without actually damping any prefixes. This will
allow for fine tuning of parameters without losing reachability.
7. Security Considerations
It is well known that an attacker can generate false flapping to
cause a victim's prefix(es) to be damped.
As the recommendations merely change parameters to more conservative
values, there should be no increase in risk.
In fact, the parameter change to more conservative values should
slightly mitigate the false flap attack.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA Considerations.
9. Acknowledgments
Nate Kushman initiated this work some years ago. Ron Bonica, Seiichi
Kawamura, and Erik Muller contributed useful suggestions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Pelsser, et al. Expires April 14, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Making Route Flap Damping Usable October 2013
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route
Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[mao2002] Mao, Z. M., Govidan, R., Varghese, G., Katz, R., "Route
Flap Damping Excacerbates Internet Routing Convergence",
In Proceedings of SIGCOMM , August 2002, <http://
conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/
routedampening.pdf>.
[pelsser2011]
Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Mohapatra, P., Bush, R., Patel,
K., "Route Flap Damping Made Usable", Passive and Active
Measurement (PAM), March 2011,
<http://pam2011.gatech.edu/papers/pam2011--Pelsser.pdf>.
[ripe378] Panigl, P. Smith, P., "RIPE Routing Working Group
Recommendations On Route-flap Damping", 2006,
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-378>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey]
Tsuchiya, S., Kawamura, S., Bush, R., and C. Pelsser,
"Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey", draft-
shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-05 (work in
progress), June 2012.
[huston2006]
Huston, G., "BGP Extreme Routing Noise", RIPE 52 , 2006,
<http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52
-plenary-bgp-review.pdf>.
[ripe178] Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C.,
Schmitz, J., "RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for
Coordinated Route-flap Damping Parameters", 2001,
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-178>.
[ripe580] Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Maennel, O., Patel, K., Mohapatra,
P., Kuhne, M., Evans, R., "RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation
for Route-flap Damping", 2013,
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580>.
Pelsser, et al. Expires April 14, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Making Route Flap Damping Usable October 2013
Authors' Addresses
Cristel Pelsser
Internet Initiative Japan
Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105
Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0051
JP
Phone: +81 3 5205 6464
Email: cristel@iij.ad.jp
Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
US
Email: randy@psg.com
Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra
Cumulus Systems, Inc.
2672 Bayshore Parkway, Suite 515
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: pmohapat@cumulusnetworks.com
Olaf Maennel
Loughborough University
Department of Computer Science - N.2.03
Loughborough
UK
Phone: +44 115 714 0042
Email: o@maennel.net
Pelsser, et al. Expires April 14, 2014 [Page 7]
