⭐ 欢迎来到虫虫下载站! | 📦 资源下载 📁 资源专辑 ℹ️ 关于我们
⭐ 虫虫下载站

📄 rfc2439.txt

📁 xorp源码hg
💻 TXT
📖 第 1 页 / 共 5 页
字号:
Network Working Group                                       C. VillamizarRequest for Comments: 2439                                            ANSCategory: Standards Track                                      R. Chandra                                                                    Cisco                                                              R. Govindan                                                                      ISI                                                            November 1998                         BGP Route Flap DampingStatus of this Memo   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   A usage of the BGP routing protocol is described which is capable of   reducing the routing traffic passed on to routing peers and therefore   the load on these peers without adversely affecting route convergence   time for relatively stable routes.  This technique has been   implemented in commercial products supporting BGP. The technique is   also applicable to IDRP.   The overall goals are:   o  to provide a mechanism capable of reducing router processing load      caused by instability   o  in doing so prevent sustained routing oscillations   o  to do so without sacrificing route convergence time for generally      well behaved routes.   This must be accomplished keeping other goals of BGP in mind:   o  pack changes into a small number of updates   o  preserve consistent routingVillamizar, et. al.         Standards Track                     [Page 1]RFC 2439                 BGP Route Flap Damping            November 1998   o  minimal addition space and computational overhead   An excessive rate of update to the advertised reachability of a   subset of Internet prefixes has been widespread in the Internet.   This observation was made in the early 1990s by many people involved   in Internet operations and remains the case.  These excessive updates   are not necessarily periodic so route oscillation would be a   misleading term.  The informal term used to describe this effect is   "route flap".  The techniques described here are now widely deployed   and are commonly referred to as "route flap damping".1 Overview   To maintain scalability of a routed internet, it is necessary to   reduce the amount of change in routing state propagated by BGP in   order to limit processing requirements.  The primary contributors of   processing load resulting from BGP updates are the BGP decision   process and adding and removing forwarding entries.   Consider the following example.  A widely deployed BGP implementation   may tend to fail due to high routing update volume.  For example, it   may be unable to maintain it's BGP or IGP sessions if sufficiently   loaded.  The failure of one router can further contribute to the load   on other routers.  This additional load may cause failures in other   instances of the same implementation or other implementations with a   similar weakness.  In the worst case, a stable oscillation could   result.  Such worse cases have already been observed in practice.   A BGP implementation must be prepared for a large volume of routing   traffic.  A BGP implementation cannot rely upon the sender to   sufficiently shield it from route instabilities.  The guidelines here   are designed to prevent sustained oscillations, but do not eliminate   the need for robust and efficient implementations.  The mechanisms   described here allow routing instability to be contained at an AS   border router bordering the instability.   Even where BGP implementations are highly robust, the performance of   the routing process is limited.  Limiting the propagation of   unnecessary change then becomes an issue of maintaining reasonable   route change convergence time as a routing topology grows.2 Methods of Limiting Route Advertisement   Two methods of controlling the frequency of route advertisement are   described here.  The first involves fixed timers.  The fixed timer   technique has no space overhead per route but has the disadvantage of   slowing route convergence for the normal case where a route does not   have a history of instability.  The second method overcomes thisVillamizar, et. al.         Standards Track                     [Page 2]RFC 2439                 BGP Route Flap Damping            November 1998   limitation at the expense of maintaining some additional space   overhead.  The additional overhead includes a small amount of state   per route and a very small processing overhead.   It is possible and desirable to combine both techniques.  In   practice, fixed timers have been set to very short time intervals and   have proven useful to pack routes into a smaller number of updates   when routes arrive in separate updates.  The BGP protocol refers to   this as packing Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) [5].   Seldom are fixed timers set to the tens of minutes to hours that   would be necessary to actually damp route flap.  To do so would   produce the undesirable effect of severely limiting routing   convergence.2.1 Existing Fixed Timer Recommendations   BGP-3 does not make specific recommendations in this area [1].  The   short section entitled "Frequency of Route Selection" simply   recommends that something be done and makes broad statements   regarding certain properties that are desirable or undesirable.   BGP4 retains the "Frequency of Route Advertisement" section and adds   a "Frequency of Route Origination" section.  BGP-4 describes a method   of limiting route advertisement involving a fixed (configurable)   MinRouteAdvertisementInterval timer and fixed   MinASOriginationInterval timer [5].  The recommended timer values of   MinRouteAdvertisementInterval is 30 seconds and   MinASOriginationInterval is 15 seconds.2.2 Desirable Properties of Damping Algorithms   Before describing damping algorithms the objectives need to be   clearly defined.  Some key properties are examined to clarify the   design rationale.   The overall objective is to reduce the route update load without   limiting convergence time for well behaved routes.  To accomplish   this, criteria must be defined for well behaved and poorly behaved   routes.  An algorithm must be defined which allows poorly behaved   routes to be identified.  Ideally, this measure would be a prediction   of the future stability of a route.   Any delay in propagation of well behaved routes should be minimal.   Some delay is tolerable to support better packing of updates.  Delay   of poorly behave routes should, if possible, be proportional to a   measure of the expected future instability of the route.  Delay in   propagating an unstable route should cause the unstable route to beVillamizar, et. al.         Standards Track                     [Page 3]RFC 2439                 BGP Route Flap Damping            November 1998   suppressed until there is some degree of confidence that the route   has stabilized.   If a large number of route changes are received in separate updates   over some very short period of time and these updates have the   potential to be combined into a single update then these should be   packed as efficiently as possible before propagating further.  Some   small delay in propagating well behaved routes is tolerable and is   necessary to allow better packing of updates.   Where routes are unstable, use and announcement of the routes should   be suppressed rather than suppressing their removal.  Where one route   to a destination is stable, and another route to the same destination   is somewhat unstable, if possible, the unstable route should be   suppressed more aggressively than if there were no alternate path.   Routing consistency within an AS is very important.  Only very   minimal delay of internal BGP (IBGP) should be done.  Routing   consistency across AS boundaries is also very important.  It is   highly undesirable to advertise a route that is different from the   route that is being used, except for a very minimal time.  It is more   desirable to suppress the acceptance of a route (and therefore the   use of that route in the IGP) rather than suppress only the   redistribution.   It is clearly not possible to accurately predict the future stability   of a route.  The recent history of stability is generally regarded as   a good basis for estimating the likelihood of future stability.  The   criteria that is used to distinguish well behaved from poorly behaved   routes is therefore based on the recent history of stability of the   route.  There is no simple quantitative expression of recent   stability so a figure of merit must be defined.  Some desirable   characteristics of this figure of merit would be that the farther in   the past that instability occurred, the less it's affect on the   figure of merit and that the instability measure would be cumulative   rather than reflecting only the most recent event.   The algorithms should behave such that for routes which have a   history of stability but make a few transitions, those transitions   should be made quickly.  If transitions continue, advertisement of   the route should be suppressed.  There should be some memory of prior   instability.  The degree to which prior instability is considered   should be gradually reduced as long as the route remains announced   and stable.Villamizar, et. al.         Standards Track                     [Page 4]RFC 2439                 BGP Route Flap Damping            November 19982.3 Design Choices   After routes have been accepted their readvertisement will be briefly   suppressed to improve packing of updates.  There may be a lengthy   suppression of the acceptance of an external route.  How long a route   will be suppressed is based on a figure of merit that is expected to   be correlated to the probability of future instability of a route.   Routes with high figure of merit values will be suppressed.  An   exponential decay algorithm was chosen as the basis for reducing the   figure of merit over time.  These choices should be viewed as   suggestions for implementation.   An exponential decay function has the property that previous   instability can be remembered for a fairly long time.  The rate at   which the instability figure of merit decays slows as time goes on.   Exponential decay has the following property.         f(f(figure-of-merit, t1), t2) = f(figure-of-merit, t1+t2)   This property allows the decay for a long period to be computed in a   single operation regardless of the current value (figure-of-merit).   As a performance optimization, the decay can be applied in fixed time   increments.  Given a desired decay half life, the decay for a single   time increment can be computed ahead of time.  The decay for multiple   time increments is expressed below.        f(figure-of-merit, n*t0) = f(figure-of-merit, t0)**n = K**n   The values of K ** n can be precomputed for a reasonable number of   "n" and stored in an array.  The value of "K" is always less than   one.  The array size can be bounded since the value quickly   approaches zero.  This makes the decay easy to compute using an array   bound check, an array lookup and a single multiply regardless as to   how much time has elapsed.3 Limiting Route Advertisements using Fixed Timers   This method of limiting route advertisements involves the use of   fixed timers applied to the process of sending routes.  It's primary   purpose is to improve the packing of routes in BGP update messages.   The delay in advertising a stable route should be bounded and   minimal.  The delay in advertising an unreachable need not be zero,   but should also be bounded and should probably have a separate bound   set less than or equal to the bound for a reachable advertisement.   The BGP protocol defines the use of a Routing Information Base (RIB).   Routes that need to be readvertised can be marked in the RIB or an   external set of structures maintained, which references the RIB.Villamizar, et. al.         Standards Track                     [Page 5]RFC 2439                 BGP Route Flap Damping            November 1998   Periodically, a subset of the marked routes can be flushed.  This is   fairly straightforward and accomplishes the objectives.  Computation   for too simple an implementation may be order N squared.  To avoid N   squared performance, some form of data structure is needed to group   routes with common attributes.   An implementation should pack updates efficiently, provide a minimum   readvertisement delay, provide a bounds on the maximum   readvertisement delay that would be experienced solely as a result of   the algorithm used to provide a minimum delay, and must be   computationally efficient in the presence of a very large number of   candidates for readvertisement.

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码 Ctrl + C
搜索代码 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切换主题 Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键 ?
增大字号 Ctrl + =
减小字号 Ctrl + -