Internet DRAFT - draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey
draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Tsuchiya, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational S. Kawamura
Expires: December 23, 2012 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
R. Bush
C. Pelsser
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
June 21, 2012
Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-05
Abstract
BGP Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] is a mechanism that targets route
stability. It penalyzes routes that flap with the aim of reducing
CPU load on the routers.
But it has side-effects. Thus, in 2006, RIPE recommended not to use
Route Flap Damping (see [RIPE-378]).
Now, some researchers propose to turn RFD, with less aggressive
parameters, back on [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable].
This document describes results of a survey conducted among service
provider on their use of BGP Route Flap Damping.
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/.
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 December 23, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
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. Survey Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Survey's target and period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Q1.Which is the best description of your job role? . . . . 3
3.1.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Q3.If you select No on Q2,why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? . . . 4
3.5. Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap
Damping Considered Usable?'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do
you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? . . . . 5
3.7. Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress
Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default
value on implementations should be changed to 6K?'' . . . . 5
3.8. Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box. . . . . 5
3.8.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.8.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Summary of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
1. Survey Purpose
RIPE published some recommendations such as [RIPE-178],[RIPE-
210],[RIPE-229] and [RIPE-378].
The purpose of this survey is to understand the current usage and
requirements of Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] among service providers.
2. Survey's target and period
2.1. Japan
Target: Japan Network Operator Group janog@janog.gr.jp
Period: Jan 28,2011 - Feb 12,2011
2.2. Global
Target: All operators who has answered the survey
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey.
We posted this document to the following mailing list.
North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org
RIPE Routing Working Group routing-wg@ripe.net
Asia Pacific OperatorS Forum apops@apops.net
Africa Network Operators Group afnog@afnog.org
South Asian Network Operators Group sanog@sanog.org
Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
lacnog@lacnic.net
Period:Mar 7,2011 - May 25,2011
3. Survey Results
3.1. Q1.Which is the best description of your job role?
3.1.1. Japan
This question did not exist Japan version.
3.1.2. Global
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
BGP operator:27
Researcher:1
Engineer of vendor:3
Engineer of Network/System Integrator:13
Student:0
Other:0
3.2. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ?
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| YES | 5 | 8 | 13 | 20.6 |
| NO | 8 | 36 | 49 | 77.8 |
| Skipped Q2. | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
3.3. Q3.If you select No on Q2,why?
+----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+
| Answer | Japan | Global | Total | Percentage[%] |
| | | | Number | |
+----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+
| Do not have the need | 3 | 7 | 10 | 19.6 |
| Did not know about | 2 | 3 | 5 | 9.8 |
| the feature | | | | |
| No benefits expected | 3 | 7 | 10 | 19.6 |
| Customers would | 1 | 4 | 5 | 9.8 |
| complain | | | | |
| Because I read | 2 | 13 | 15 | 29.4 |
| [RIPE-378] | | | | |
| Other | 3 | 3 | 6 | 11.8 |
+----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+
1 person answered Q3,even if he selected "Yes" on Q2.
3.4. Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use?
+-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
+-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| Default | 3 | 3 | 6 | 40.0 |
| parameters | | | | |
| [RIPE-178] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.7 |
| [RIPE-210] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| [RIPE-229] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.7 |
| Other | 3 | 4 | 7 | 46.7 |
+-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
1 person answered Q4, even if he selected "No" on Q2.
3.5. Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping
Considered Usable?''
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| YES | 12 | 21 | 33 | 52.4 |
| NO | 7 | 22 | 29 | 46.0 |
| Skipped Q5. | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.6 |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
One person skipped Q2, but answered Q5.
3.6. Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this
limitation to be relaxed to over 50K?
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| YES | 10 | 14 | 24 | 38.1 |
| NO | 9 | 23 | 32 | 50.8 |
| Skipped Q6. | 0 | 7 | 7 | 11.1 |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
3.7. Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress Threshold should
be set to 6K.Do you think the default value on implementations
should be changed to 6K?''
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
| YES | N/A | 17 | 17 | 38.6 |
| NO | N/A | 18 | 18 | 40.9 |
| Skipped Q7. | N/A | 9 | 9 | 20.5 |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
This question did not exist Japan version.
3.8. Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box.
Free format
3.8.1. Japan
-Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped
sometimes.
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
-We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non-
damped route.
-From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us
that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and
ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?"
-We use damping pretty heavily
-I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router
has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD.
3.8.2. Global
-Statistical reports from big Service Providers may better visualize
the situation.
-best current practices is nice, but always needs to be adjusted to
reflect local network settings.
-We used RFD in the past and came to the conclusion that we do not
want to use RFD any more. We still have it configured to be able to
get Flap statistics out of our Cisco boxes, but no prefixes get
dampended
-We recently removed all RFD from the configs due to the information
read on the topic among the preso's on the NANOG Archive.
-after seeing this survey, I read the draft; sounds promising; would
be nice to see vendors start to implement it.
-Q3, other: Juniper RFD is broken, default values count penalty for
both update and withdrawal, and they would not fix that. No clear
motivation for us, has caused outage when our customers (with
primiary and backup connection to us) had a flapping link.
-Strong desire to see the path vector penalized rather than the
prefix.
4. Analysis
Operator's reason why RFD disable,it depends on position of BGP
network.
If the network is stub and the router has enough resource against
flapping ,Route Flap Damping does not really needs.In this case,if
the upstream ISP enabled Route Flap Damping,the downstream complained
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
about this.The survey shows the result in Q8.
Also,total of 5 people selected "Customer would complain" as reason
of Route Flap Damping disble.
This is good example as current too damping RFD is harmful.RFD
targets are to protect customer resource such as CPU and provide
stable internet reachability to customer,but current RFD would be
disaffection.
.--.
_(. `)
_( `)_
( Internet `)
( ` . ) )
`--(_______)---'
\ \
\ \
\ \
+----------+ +----------+
| ISP-A |\\\\\\\\\\\| ISP-B |
+----------+ +----------+
| \ | \
| \ | \
| \ | \
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
|ISP-C| |ISP-D| |ISP-E| |ISP-F|
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure.1
Figure.1 shows BGP topology.ISP-A and ISP-B is big service
provider.ISP-A peering with ISP-B and ISP-D.ISP-B peering with ISP- A
and ISP-F.ISP-C and ISP-E buy transit from ISP-A and ISP-B.ISP-A
execute RFD and ISP-B not execute RFD.
In this case,ISP-C and ISP-D would complain to ISP-A,because internet
route and itself are often disappeared due to too damping.ISP-E and
ISP-F would not complain about Route Flap Damping.But if once the
internet would be unstable,the influence will be reach to all of ISP-
B,ISP-E and ISP-F even though ISP-A,ISP-C and ISP-D are safe.
We can recognize the people who selected "NO" on Q2 and "Yes"on Q6
are really expecting implementation of [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] on the
router. The total number is 18.
Parameter implementation differs among different vendors. To avoid
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
operation complexity,[RFC2439] might need to redefine.
5. Summary of data
From the survey we see that there are many service providers with RFD
disabled. The reason varies among providers, but it is clear that
there are those who wish that RFD was made useful.
[draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] describes how to improve RFD with minor
changes to some parameters. From the comments in the survey, the
most significant fear of enabling RFD is its impact on customers.
6. Acknowledgements
We thank the 63 respondant to this survey.We also would like to thank
Wesley George for helpful input.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
8. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-rfd-usable]
Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O.
Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable",
draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress),
June 2012.
[I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable]
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O.
Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable",
draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress), March 2011.
[RIPE-178]
Barber, T., Doran, S., Panigl, C., and J. Schmitz, ""RIPE
Routing-WG Recommendation for coor-dinated route-flap
damping parameters"", Feb 1998,
<ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-178.txt>.
[RIPE-210]
Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C., and J.
Schmitz, ""RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coordinated
route-flap damping parameters"", May 2000,
<ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-210.txt>.
[RIPE-229]
Panigl, C., Schmitz, J., Smith, P., and C. Vistoli, ""RIPE
Routing-WG Recommendations for Coordinated Route-flap
Damping Parameters"", Oct 2001,
<ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-229.txt>.
[RIPE-378]
Smith, P. and C. Panigl, ""RIPE Routing Working Group
Recommendations On Route-flap Damping"", May 2006,
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-378>.
[Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?]
Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Patel, K., and R. Bush, ""Route
Flap Damping Considered Useable"", Nov 2011, <http://
ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/222-101117.ripe-rfd.pdf>.
Appendix A. Additional Stuff
This becomes an Appendix.
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey June 2012
Authors' Addresses
Shishio Tsuchiya (editor)
Cisco Systems
Midtown Tower, 9-7-1,Akasaka
Minato-Ku, Tokyo 107-6227
Japan
Phone: +81 3 6434 6543
Email: shtsuchi@cisco.com
Seiichi Kawamura
NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
14-22, Shibaura 4-chome
Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558
JAPAN
Phone: +81 3 3798 6085
Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp
Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
US
Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1
Email: randy@psg.com
Cristel Pelsser
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105
Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-kun 101-0051
JP
Phone: +81 3 5205 6464
Email: cristel@iij.ad.jp
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 10]
