Translation

English
In this internetwork, there are four ASes. `AS0` advertises one route towards one prefix and we only analyze the routes towards this prefix. The routing preferences of `AS1`, `AS3` and `AS4` are the following :
0/2100 · 210
English French Actions
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.
The disagree internetwork
In this internetwork, we focus on the route towards `2001:db8::1234/48` which is advertised by `AS1`. Let us also assume that `AS3` (resp. `AS4`) prefers, e.g. for economic reasons, a route learned from `AS4` (`AS3`) over a route learned from `AS1`. When `AS1` sends `U(2001:db8::1234/48,AS1)` to `AS3` and `AS4`, three sequences of exchanges of BGP messages are possible :
`AS3` sends first `U(2001:db8:1234/48,AS3:AS1)` to `AS4`. `AS4` has learned two routes towards `2001:db8:1234/48`. It runs its BGP decision process and selects the route via `AS3` and does not advertise a route to `AS3`
`AS4` first sends `U(2001:db8:1234/48,AS4:AS1)` to `AS3`. `AS3` has learned two routes towards `2001:db8:1234/48`. It runs its BGP decision process and selects the route via `AS4` and does not advertise a route to `AS4`
`AS3` sends `U(2001:db8:1234/48,AS3:AS1)` to `AS4` and, at the same time, `AS4` sends `U(2001:db8:1234/48,AS4:AS1)`. `AS3` prefers the route via `AS4` and thus sends `W(2001:db8:1234/48)` to `AS4`. In the mean time, `AS4` prefers the route via `AS3` and thus sends `W(2001:db8:1234/48)` to `AS3`. Upon reception of the `BGP Withdraws`, `AS3` and `AS4` only know the direct route towards `2001:db8:1234/48`. `AS3` (resp. `AS4`) sends `U(2001:db8:1234/48,AS3:AS1)` (resp. `U(2001:db8:1234/48,AS4:AS1)`) to `AS4` (resp. `AS3`). `AS3` and `AS4` could in theory continue to exchange BGP messages for ever. In practice, one of them sends one message faster than the other and BGP converges.
The example above has shown that the routes selected by BGP routers may sometimes depend on the ordering of the BGP messages that are exchanged. Other similar scenarios may be found in :rfc:`4264`.
From an operational perspective, the above configuration is annoying since the network operators cannot easily predict which paths are chosen. Unfortunately, there are even more annoying BGP configurations. For example, let us consider the configuration below which is often named `Bad Gadget` [GW1999]_
The bad gadget internetwork
In this internetwork, there are four ASes. `AS0` advertises one route towards one prefix and we only analyze the routes towards this prefix. The routing preferences of `AS1`, `AS3` and `AS4` are the following :
`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.

Loading…

User avatar None

New source string

cnp3-ebook / protocols/bgp — French

New source string 2 years ago
Browse all component changes

Glossary

English French
No related strings found in the glossary.

String information

Source string location
../../protocols/bgp.rst:413
String age
2 years ago
Source string age
2 years ago
Translation file
locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/protocols/bgp.po, string 108