Transcript Internet Routing (COS 598A) Today: Intradomain Topology Jennifer Rexford Tuesdays/Thursdays 11:00am-12:20pm

Internet Routing (COS 598A)
Today: Intradomain Topology
Jennifer Rexford
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/teaching/spring2005
Tuesdays/Thursdays 11:00am-12:20pm
Outline
• Router architecture
– Line cards
– Switching fabric
– Router processor
• Network topology
– From hub-and-spoke to backbones
– Customer connecting to providers
• Measuring the topology
– Traceroute probes from many vantage points
– Associating an IP address with an AS
• Discussion of the papers
What is a Router?
• A computer with…
– Multiple interfaces
– Implementing routing protocols
– Packet forwarding
• Wide range of variations of routers
– Small LinkSys device in a home network
– Linux-based PC running router software
– Million-dollar high-end routers with large chassis
• … and links
– Serial line
– Ethernet
– Packet-over-SONET
Network Components
Links
Interfaces
Fibers
Ethernet card
Switches/routers
Large router
Wireless card
Coaxial Cable
Telephone
switch
Inside a High-End Router
Processor
Line card
Line card
Line card
Line card
Switching
Fabric
Line card
Line card
Router Components: Line Cards
• Interfacing
– Physical link
– Switching fabric
to/from link
Receive
– Buffer management
– Link scheduling
– Packet filtering (ACLs)
– Packet forwarding (FIB)
– Rate-limiting
– Packet marking
– Measurement
FIB
to/from switch
Transmit
• Packet handling
Router Components: Switching Fabric
• Deliver packet inside the router
– From incoming interface to outgoing interface
– A small network in and of itself
• Must operate very quickly
– Multiple packets going to same outgoing interface
– Switch scheduling to match inputs to outputs
• Implementation techniques
– Bus, crossbar, interconnection network, …
– Running at a faster speed (e.g., 2X) than links
– Dividing variable-length packets into cells
Router Components: Router Processor
• So-called “Loopback” interface
– IP address of the CPU on the router
• Control-plane software
– Implementation of the routing protocols
– Creation of forwarding table for the line cards
• Interface to network administrators
– Command-line interface for configuration
– Transmission of measurement statistics
• Handling of special data packets
– Packets with IP options enabled
– Packets with expired Time-To-Live field
Network Topology
Hub-and-Spoke Topology
• Single hub node
– Common in enterprise networks
– Main location and satellite sites
– Simple design and trivial routing
• Problems
– Single point of failure
– Bandwidth limitations
– High delay between sites
– Costs to backhaul to hub
Simple Alternatives to Hub-and-Spoke
• Dual hub-and-spoke
– Higher reliability
– Higher cost
– Good building block
• Levels of hierarchy
– Reduce backhaul cost
– Aggregate the bandwidth
– Shorter site-to-site delay
…
Backbone Networks
• Backbone networks
– Multiple Points-of-Presence (PoPs)
– Lots of communication between PoPs
– Need to accommodate diverse traffic demands
– Need to limit propagation delay
Abilene Internet2 Backbone
Points-of-Presence (PoPs)
• Inter-PoP links
– Long distances
– High bandwidth
Inter-PoP
Intra-PoP
• Intra-PoP links
– Short cables between
racks or floors
– Aggregated bandwidth
• Links to other networks
– Wide range of media
and bandwidth
Other networks
Deciding Where to Locate Nodes and Links
• Placing Points-of-Presence (PoPs)
– Large population of potential customers
– Other providers or exchange points
– Cost and availability of real-estate
– Mostly in major metropolitan areas
• Placing links between PoPs
– Already fiber in the ground
– Needed to limit propagation delay
– Needed to handle the traffic load
Customer Connecting to a Provider
Provider
1 access link
Provider
2 access routers
Provider
2 access links
Provider
2 access PoPs
Multi-Homing: Two or More Providers
• Motivations for multi-homing
–
–
–
–
Extra reliability, survive single ISP failure
Financial leverage through competition
Better performance by selecting better path
Gaming the 95th-percentile billing model
Provider 1
Provider 2
Measuring the Topology
Motivation for Measuring the Topology
• Business analysis
– Comparisons with competitors
– Selecting a provider or peer
• Scientific curiosity
– Treating data networks like an organism
– Understand structure and evolution of Internet
• Input to research studies
– Network design, routing protocols, …
• Interesting research problem in its own right
– How to measure/infer the topology
Basic Idea: Measure from Many Angles
Source 2
Source 1
Where to Get Sources and Destinations?
• Source machines
– Get accounts in many places
• Good to have a lot of friends
– Use an infrastructure like PlanetLab
• Good to have friends who have lots of friends
– Use public traceroute servers (nicely)
• http://www.traceroute.org
• Destination addresses
– Walk through the IP address space
• One (or a few) IP addresses per prefix
– Learn destination prefixes from public BGP tables
• http://www.route-views.org
Traceroute: Measuring the Forwarding Path
• Time-To-Live field in IP packet header
– Source sends a packet with a TTL of n
– Each router along the path decrements the TTL
– “TTL exceeded” sent when TTL reaches 0
• Traceroute tool exploits this TTL behavior
TTL=1
source
Time
exceeded
destination
TTL=2
Send packets with TTL=1, 2, 3, … and record source of “time exceeded” message
Example Traceroute Output (Berkeley to CNN)
Hop number, IP address, DNS name
No response
from router
1 169.229.62.1
inr-daedalus-0.CS.Berkeley.EDU
2 169.229.59.225
soda-cr-1-1-soda-br-6-2
3 128.32.255.169
vlan242.inr-202-doecev.Berkeley.EDU
4 128.32.0.249
gigE6-0-0.inr-666-doecev.Berkeley.EDU
5 128.32.0.66
qsv-juniper--ucb-gw.calren2.net
6 209.247.159.109
POS1-0.hsipaccess1.SanJose1.Level3.net
7 *
?
8 64.159.1.46
?
9 209.247.9.170
pos8-0.hsa2.Atlanta2.Level3.net
No name resolution
10 66.185.138.33
pop2-atm-P0-2.atdn.net
11 *
?
12 66.185.136.17
pop1-atl-P4-0.atdn.net
13 64.236.16.52
www4.cnn.com
Problems with Traceroute
• Missing responses
– Routers might not send “Time-Exceeded”
– Firewalls may drop the probe packets
– “Time-Exceeded” reply may be dropped
• Misleading responses
– Probes taken while the path is changing
– Name not in DNS, or DNS entry misconfigured
• Mapping IP addresses
– Mapping interfaces to a common router
– Mapping interface/router to Autonomous System
• Angry operators who think this is an attack
Map Traceroute Hops to ASes
Traceroute output: (hop number, IP)
1 169.229.62.1
AS25
2 169.229.59.225 AS25
Berkeley
3 128.32.255.169 AS25
4 128.32.0.249
AS25
5 128.32.0.66
AS11423 Calren
6 209.247.159.109 AS3356
7 *
AS3356
8 64.159.1.46
AS3356
9 209.247.9.170
AS3356
10 66.185.138.33
AS1668
11 *
AS1668
12 66.185.136.17
AS1668
13 64.236.16.52
AS5662 CNN
Level3
AOL
Need accurate
IP-to-AS mappings
(for network equipment).
Candidate Ways to Get IP-to-AS Mapping
• Routing address registry
– Voluntary public registry such as whois.radb.net
– Used by prtraceroute and “NANOG traceroute”
– Incomplete and quite out-of-date
• Mergers, acquisitions, delegation to customers
• Origin AS in BGP paths
– Public BGP routing tables such as RouteViews
– Used to translate traceroute data to an AS graph
– Incomplete and inaccurate… but usually right
• Multiple Origin ASes (MOAS), no mapping, wrong
mapping
Example: BGP Table (“show ip bgp” at RouteViews)
Network
* 3.0.0.0/8
*
*
*
*
*>
*
* 9.184.112.0/20
*
*>
*
*
*
Next Hop
Metric LocPrf Weight Path
205.215.45.50
0 4006 701 80 i
167.142.3.6
0 5056 701 80 i
157.22.9.7
0 715 1 701 80 i
195.219.96.239
0 8297 6453 701 80 i
195.211.29.254
0 5409 6667 6427 3356 701 80 i
12.127.0.249
0 7018 701 80 i
213.200.87.254
929
0 3257 701 80 i
205.215.45.50
0 4006 6461 3786 i
195.66.225.254
0 5459 6461 3786 i
203.62.248.4
0 1221 3786 i
167.142.3.6
0 5056 6461 6461 3786 i
195.219.96.239
0 8297 6461 3786 i
195.211.29.254
0 5409 6461 3786 i
AS 80 is General Electric, AS 701 is UUNET, AS 7018 is AT&T
AS 3786 is DACOM (Korea), AS 1221 is Telstra
Refining Initial IP-to-AS Mapping
• Start with initial IP-to-AS mapping
– Mapping from BGP tables is usually correct
– Good starting point for computing the mapping
• Collect many BGP and traceroute paths
– Signaling and forwarding AS path usually match
– Good way to identify mistakes in IP-to-AS map
• Successively refine the IP-to-AS mapping
– Find add/change/delete that makes big difference
– Base these “edits” on operational realities
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/sigcomm03.pdf
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/infocom04.pdf
Extra AS due to Internet eXchange Points
• IXP: shared place where providers meet
– E.g., Mae-East, Mae-West, PAIX
– Large number of fan-in and fan-out ASes
A
B
C
D
E
A
E
F
B
F
G
C
G
Traceroute AS path
BGP AS path
Ignore extra traceroute AS hop with high fan-in and fan-out
Extra AS due to Sibling ASes
• Sibling: organizations with multiple ASes:
– E.g., Sprint AS 1239 and AS 1791
– AS numbers equipment with addresses of another
A
B
C
H
D
E
A
F
B
G
C
Traceroute AS path
E
D
F
G
BGP AS path
Merge sibling ASes “belong together” as if they were one AS.
Unannounced Infrastructure Addresses
12.0.0.0/8
A
B
C does not announce part of
its address space in BGP
(e.g., 12.1.2.0/24)
ACAC
C
AC
BAC
BC
Fix the IP-to-AS map to associate 12.1.2.0/24 with C
Improving the IP-to-AS Mapping
• Algorithm for modifying the IP-to-AS map
– Small number of rules for modifying the map
– Making small changes that make a big difference
• Results of the algorithm
– Changes about 2.9% of mappings
– Much better agreement (95%) with BGP AS paths
• Validation
– AT&T router configuration data
– Whois queries to verify sibling ASes
– List of known Internet eXchange Points
Exploring the Remaining Mismatches
• Route aggregation
B
C
D
D
C
BGP path: B C
Traceroute path: B C D
E
E
– Traceroute AS path longer in 20% of mismatches
– Different paths for destinations in same prefix
• Interface numbering at AS boundaries
B
B
C
D
D
BGP path: B C D
Traceroute path: B D
– Boundary links numbered from one AS
– Verified cases where AT&T (AS 7018) is involved
Discussion of the Two Papers
• Measuring ISP topologies with RocketFuel
– Measure judiciously
– First view of ISP topologies
– PoP structure, inter-PoP graphs, peering, …
– Good? Bad? What areas for future work?
• First-principles of router-level topology
– Explain the high variability in router degree
– Technological limits on switching capacity
– Many low-speed links at edge, few large in core
– High variability at edge due to economics
– Good? Bad? What areas for future work?
Some Project Ideas
• Accuracy of router-level mapping
– Apply traceroute to map out the Abilene network
– Use PlanetLab nodes for many vantage points
– Verify against the actual topology of the network
• Influence of inaccuracy in router-level maps
– Characterize the types of inaccuracy that arise
– Determine the influence on key graph metrics
– Identify ways to limit the effects of inaccuracy
• Design better router support for measurement
– To support topology discovery, troubleshooting, …
– Be cognizant of need to be efficient, not used for
attacks, not reveal too-sensitive information, etc.
Reading for Thursday: AS-Level Topology
• Two papers, and one video
– “Toward capturing representative AS-level Internet
topologies”
– “Interconnection, peering, and settlements”
– NANOG video on evolution of Internet peering
• One-page review of first paper (hard-copy)
– Brief summary of the paper
– Reasons to accept the paper
– Reasons to reject the paper
– Three suggestions for future research directions
• Optional reading
– Should computer scientists experiment more?