Zen

Translation

The second guideline also corresponds to economic preferences. Since a provider earns money when sending packets to one of its customers, it makes sense to prefer such customer learned routes over routes learned from providers. [GR2001]_ also shows that BGP convergence is guaranteed even if an AS associates the same preference to routes learned from a `shared-cost` peer and routes learned from a customer.
0/4080 · 408

Sign in to save translations.

English French Actions
`AS1` prefers the path `AS3:AS0` over all other paths
 
`AS3` prefers the path `AS4:AS0` over all other paths
 
`AS4` prefers the path `AS1:AS0` over all other paths
 
`AS0` sends `U(p,AS0)` to `AS1`, `AS3` and `AS4`. As this is the only route known by `AS1`, `AS3` and `AS4` towards `p`, they all select the direct path. Let us now consider one possible exchange of BGP messages :
 
`AS1` sends `U(p, AS1:AS0)` to `AS3` and `AS4`. `AS4` selects the path via `AS1` since this is its preferred path. `AS3` still uses the direct path.
 
`AS4` advertises `U(p,AS4:AS1:AS0)` to `AS3`.
 
`AS3` sends `U(p, AS3:AS0)` to `AS1` and `AS4`. `AS1` selects the path via `AS3` since this is its preferred path. `AS4` still uses the path via `AS1`.
 
As `AS1` has changed its path, it sends `U(p,AS1:AS3:AS0)` to `AS4` and `W(p)` to `AS3` since its new path is via `AS3`. `AS4` switches back to the direct path.
 
`AS4` sends `U(p,AS4:AS0)` to `AS1` and `AS3`. `AS3` prefers the path via `AS4`.
 
`AS3` sends `U(p,AS3:AS4:AS0)` to `AS1` and `W(p)` to `AS4`. `AS1` switches back to the direct path and we are back at the first step.
 
This example shows that the convergence of BGP is unfortunately not always guaranteed as some interdomain routing policies may interfere with each other in complex ways. [GW1999]_ have shown that checking for global convergence is either NP-complete or NP-hard. See [GSW2002]_ for a more detailed discussion.
 
Fortunately, there are some operational guidelines [GR2001]_ [GGR2001]_ that can guarantee BGP convergence in the global Internet. To ensure that BGP will converge, these guidelines consider that there are two types of peering relationships : `customer->provider` and `shared-cost`. In this case, BGP convergence is guaranteed provided that the following conditions are fulfilled :
 
The topology composed of all the directed `customer->provider` peering links is a graph that does not contain any cycle
 
An AS always prefers a route received from a `customer` over a route received from a `shared-cost` peer or a `provider`.
 
The first guideline implies that the provider of the provider of `ASx` cannot be a customer of `ASx`. Such a relationship would not make sense from an economic perspective as it would imply circular payments. Furthermore, providers are usually larger than customers.
 
The second guideline also corresponds to economic preferences. Since a provider earns money when sending packets to one of its customers, it makes sense to prefer such customer learned routes over routes learned from providers. [GR2001]_ also shows that BGP convergence is guaranteed even if an AS associates the same preference to routes learned from a `shared-cost` peer and routes learned from a customer.
 
From a theoretical perspective, these guidelines should be verified automatically to ensure that BGP will always converge in the global Internet. However, such a verification cannot be performed in practice because this would force all domains to disclose their routing policies (and few are willing to do so) and furthermore the problem is known to be NP-hard [GW1999].
 
In practice, researchers and operators expect that these guidelines are verified [#fgranularity]_ in most domains. Thanks to the large amount of BGP data that has been collected by operators and researchers [#fbgpdata]_, several studies have analyzed the AS-level topology of the Internet. [SARK2002]_ is one of the first analysis. More recent studies include [COZ2008]_ and [DKF+2007]_
 
Based on these studies and [ATLAS2009]_, the AS-level Internet topology can be summarized as shown in the figure below.
 
The layered structure of the global Internet
 
The domains on the Internet can be divided in about four categories according to their role and their position in the AS-level topology.
 
Due to this organization of the Internet and due to the BGP decision process, most AS-level paths on the Internet have a length of 3-5 AS hops.
 
Footnotes
 
An analysis of the evolution of the number of domains on the global Internet during the last ten years may be found in http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asn32/.
 
Several web sites collect and analyze data about the evolution of BGP in the global Internet. http://bgp.potaroo.net provides lots of statistics and analyzes that are updated daily.
 
See http://as-rank.caida.org/ for an analysis of the interconnections between domains based on measurements collected in the global Internet.
 
Two routers that are attached to the same IXP exchange packets only when the owners of their domains have an economical incentive to exchange packets on this IXP. Usually, a router on an IXP is only able to exchange packets with a small fraction of the routers that are present on the same IXP.
 
See ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase for the RIPE database that contains the import and export policies of many European ISPs.
 
In this text, we consider Autonomous System and domain as synonyms. In practice, a domain may be divided into several Autonomous Systems, but we ignore this detail.
 
The BGP sessions and the underlying TCP connection are typically established by the routers when they boot based on information found in their configuration. The BGP sessions are rarely released, except if the corresponding peering link fails or one of the endpoints crashes or needs to be rebooted.
 
90 seconds is the default delay recommended by :rfc:`4271`. However, two BGP peers can negotiate a different timer during the establishment of their BGP session. Using a too small interval to detect BGP session failures is not recommended. BFD [KW2009]_ can be used to replace BGP's KEEPALIVE mechanism if fast detection of interdomain link failures is required.
 

Loading…

User avatar None

Source string added
The second guideline also corresponds to economic preferences. Since a provider earns money when sending packets to one of its customers, it makes sense to prefer such customer learned routes over routes learned from providers. [GR2001]_ also shows that BGP convergence is guaranteed even if an AS associates the same preference to routes learned from a `shared-cost` peer and routes learned from a customer.
4 years ago
Browse all string changes

Glossary

English French
No related strings found in the glossary.

30813 String information

Source string location
../../protocols/bgp.rst:438
String age
4 years ago
Last updated
2 months ago
Source string age
4 years ago
Translation file
locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/protocols/bgp.po, string 124