Source string Source string

153/10000 · 153
English Actions
We use the notation `U(prefix, nexthop, attributes)` to represent such a `BGP Update` message in this section. Similarly, `W(prefix)` represents a `BGP withdraw` for the specified prefix. Once the `R1-R2` session has been established, `R1` sends `U(2001:db8:1234::/48,2001:db8::5,AS10)` to `R2` and `R2` sends `U(2001:db8:5678:/48,2001:db8::6,AS20)`. At this point, `R1` can reach `2001:db8:5678::/48` via `2001:db8::6` and `R2` can reach `2001:db8:1234::/48` via `2001:db8::5`.
Once the `R2-R3` has been established, `R3` sends `U(2001:db8:acbd::/48,2001:db8::2,AS30)`. `R2` announces on the `R2-R3` session all the routes inside its RIB. It thus sends to `R3` : `U(2001:db8:1234::/48,2001:db8::1,AS20:AS10)` and `U(2001:db8:5678::/48,2001:db8::1,AS20)`. Note that when `R2` advertises the route that it learned from `R1`, it updates the BGP nexthop and adds its AS number to the AS-Path. `R2` also sends `U(2001:db8:abcd::48,2001:db8::6,AS20:AS30)` to `R1` on the `R1-R3` session. At this point, all BGP routes have been exchanged and all routers can reach `2001:db8::1234/48`, `2001:db8:5678::/48` and `2001:db8:abcd::/48`.
If the link between `R2` and `R3` fails, `R3` detects the failure as it did not receive `KEEPALIVE` messages recently from `R2`. At this time, `R3` removes from its RIB all the routes learned over the `R2-R3` BGP session. `R2` also removes from its RIB the routes learned from `R3`. `R2` also sends `W(2001:db8:acbd::/48)` to `R1` over the `R1-R3` BGP session since it does not have a route anymore towards this prefix.
Origin of the routes advertised by a BGP router
A frequent practical question about the operation of BGP is how a BGP router decides to originate or advertise a route for the first time. In practice, this occurs in two situations :
the router has been manually configured by the network operator to always advertise one or several routes on a BGP session. For example, on the BGP session between UCLouvain and its provider, belnet_ , UCLouvain's router always advertises the `2001:6a8:3080/48` IPv6 prefix assigned to the campus network
the router has been configured by the network operator to advertise over its BGP session some of the routes that it learns with its intradomain routing protocol. For example, an enterprise router may advertise over a BGP session with its provider the routes to remote sites when these routes are reachable and advertised by the intradomain routing protocol
The first solution is the most frequent. Advertising routes learned from an intradomain routing protocol is not recommended, this is because if the route flaps [#fflap]_, this would cause a large number of BGP messages being exchanged in the global Internet.
The BGP decision process
Besides the import and export filters, a key difference between BGP and the intradomain routing protocols is that each domain can define its own ranking algorithm to determine which route is chosen to forward packets when several routes have been learned towards the same prefix. This ranking depends on several BGP attributes that can be attached to a BGP route.
The first BGP attribute that is used to rank BGP routes is the `local-preference` (local-pref) attribute. This attribute is an unsigned integer that is attached to each BGP route received over an eBGP session by the associated import filter.
When comparing routes towards the same destination prefix, a BGP router always prefers the routes with the highest `local-pref`. If the BGP router knows several routes with the same `local-pref`, it prefers among the routes having this `local-pref` the ones with the shortest AS-Path.
The `local-pref` attribute is often used to prefer some routes over others.
A common utilization of `local-pref` is to support backup links. Consider the situation depicted in the figure below. `AS1` would always like to use the high bandwidth link to send and receive packets via `AS2` and only use the backup link upon failure of the primary one.
How to create a backup link with BGP ?
As BGP routers always prefer the routes with the highest `local-pref` attribute, this policy can be implemented using the following import filter on `R1`
With this import filter, all the BGP routes learned from `RB` over the high bandwidth links are preferred over the routes learned over the backup link. If the primary link fails, the corresponding routes are removed from `R1`'s RIB and `R1` uses the route learned from `RA`. `R1` reuses the routes via `RB` as soon as they are advertised by `RB` once the `R1-RB` link comes back.
The import filter above modifies the selection of the BGP routes inside `AS1`. Thus, it influences the route followed by the packets forwarded by `AS1`. In addition to using the primary link to send packets, `AS1` would like to receive its packets via the high bandwidth link. For this, `AS2` also needs to set the `local-pref` attribute in its import filter.
Sometimes, the `local-pref` attribute is used to prefer a `cheap` link compared to a more expensive one. For example, in the network below, `AS1` could wish to send and receive packets mainly via its interdomain link with `AS4`.
How to prefer a cheap link over an more expensive one ?
`AS1` can install the following import filter on `R1` to ensure that it always sends packets via `R2` when it has learned a route via `AS2` and another via `AS4`.
However, this import filter does not influence how `AS3` , for example, prefers some routes over others. If the link between `AS3` and `AS2` is less expensive than the link between `AS3` and `AS4`, `AS3` could send all its packets via `AS2` and `AS1` would receive packets over its expensive link. An important point to remember about `local-pref` is that it can be used to prefer some routes over others to send packets, but it has no influence on the routes followed by received packets.
Another important utilization of the `local-pref` attribute is to support the `customer->provider` and `shared-cost` peering relationships. From an economic point of view, there is an important difference between these three types of peering relationships. A domain usually earns money when it sends packets over a `provider->customer` relationship. On the other hand, it must pay its provider when it sends packets over a `customer->provider` relationship. Using a `shared-cost` peering to send packets is usually neutral from an economic perspective. To take into account these economic issues, domains usually configure the import filters on their routers as follows :
insert a high `local-pref` attribute in the routes learned from a customer
insert a medium `local-pref` attribute in the routes learned over a shared-cost peering
insert a low `local-pref` attribute in the routes learned from a provider
With such an import filter, the routers of a domain always prefer to reach destinations via their customers whenever such a route exists. Otherwise, they prefer to use `shared-cost` peering relationships and they only send packets via their providers when they do not know any alternate route. A consequence of setting the `local-pref` attribute like this is that Internet paths are often asymmetrical. Consider for example the internetwork shown in the figure below.
Asymmetry of Internet paths
Consider in this internetwork the routes available inside `AS1` to reach `AS5`. `AS1` learns the `AS4:AS6:AS7:AS5` path from `AS4`, the `AS3:AS8:AS5` path from `AS3` and the `AS2:AS5` path from `AS2`. The first path is chosen since it was learned from a customer. `AS5` on the other hand receives three paths towards `AS1` via its providers. It may select any of these paths to reach `AS1` , depending on how it prefers one provider over the others.
BGP convergence
In the previous sections, we have explained the operation of BGP routers. Compared to intradomain routing protocols, a key feature of BGP is its ability to support interdomain routing policies that are defined by each domain as its import and export filters and ranking process. A domain can define its own routing policies and router vendors have implemented many configuration tweaks to support complex routing policies. However, the routing policy chosen by a domain may interfere with the routing policy chosen by another domain. To understand this issue, let us first consider the simple internetwork shown below.

Loading…

No matching activity found.
Browse all component changes

Glossary

English English
No related strings found in the glossary.

String information

Flags
read-only
Source string location
../../protocols/bgp.rst:327
String age
3 years ago
Source string age
3 years ago
Translation file
locale/pot/protocols/bgp.pot, string 84