Internet DRAFT - draft-jakma-mrai
draft-jakma-mrai
Inter-Domain Routing P. Jakma
Internet-Draft Sun Microsystems
Expires: May 22, 2009 November 18, 2008
Revised Default Values for the BGP 'Minimum Route Advertisement
Interval'
draft-jakma-mrai-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2009.
Abstract
This document briefly examines what is known about the effects of the
BGP MRAI timer, particularly on convergence. It highlights published
work which suggests the MRAI interval as deployed has an adverse
effect on the convergence time of BGP.
It then recommends revised, lower default values for the MRAI timer,
thought to be more suited to today's Internet environment.
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
Table of Contents
1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. The MRAI Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Known effects of the MRAI timer on convergence . . . . . . 3
2.3. Interaction with Flap-Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Current Status of the MRAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Risk Evaluation in the Choice of MRAI Time . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Recommendations on the MRAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Background
The proper functioning of the [BGP] routing protocol is of great
importance to the Internet. Issues regarding matters of its
stability and convergence have been documented widely, such as in
[BGP-STAB], [bgp-converge] and [Potaroo0607].
One such issue is the effect of 'Minimum Route Advertisement
Interval' (MRAI).
2.1. The MRAI Timer
The Minimum Route Advertisement Interval (MRAI) timer is specified in
RFC4271 [BGP]. This timer acts to rate-limit updates, on a per-
destination basis. [BGP] suggests values of 30s and 5s for this
interval for eBGP and iBGP respectively. The MRAI must also be
applied to withdrawals according to RFC4271 [BGP], a change from the
earlier RFC1771.
Some implementations apply this rate-limiting on a per-peer basis,
presumably an adequate approximation. Some implementations apply it
to withdrawal methods (often called "WRATE" in the literature). Some
implementations do not apply MRAI at all.
2.2. Known effects of the MRAI timer on convergence
The MRAI timer serves to suppress messages which BGP would otherwise
send out to describe transitory states, and so allow BGP to converge
with significantly fewer messages sent. This beneficial effect of
the MRAI timer, in terms of # of messages, increases as the timer is
increased until an optimum value is reached, after which the
beneficial effect stabilises. [bgp-converge] [mrai-final]
In terms of convergence time, a similar beneficial effect is seen as
the MRAI increases to near the same optimum value. However as the
timer value is increased past this point, the convergence time
increases again linearly. The scale of this increase is
significantly worse with WRATE, i.e. applying the MRAI to withdrawals
has an adverse effect on BGP convergence time. [bgp-converge]
[mrai-final]
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
The optimum MRAI timer value is dependent on several factors, most
particularly the topology in its layout and propagation times. The
optimum value will differ between different subsets of the Internet.
[mrai-final]
It is believed to be infeasible to try directly calculate this value.
However a useful approximation can be made from the diameter of the
topology if it is known, along with some assumptions about the the
topology, such as the latency between nodes. [mrai-internet]
The interaction between extensions to BGP designed to improve
convergence, such as those that allow propagation of additional
and/or backup paths, and the MRAI timer is as yet unknown. However,
it seems reasonable to speculate these extensions might have the
effect of leading to a lower optimum MRAI than would be indicated by
an approximation based on the diameter of the BGP topology. Further
work on these questions would be useful.
2.3. Interaction with Flap-Damping
As the MRAI helps eliminate some updates, it interacts with flap-
damping [BGP-DAMP]. The lower the MRAI timer, the greater the risk
of crossing below the threshold of the optimum value. If that
threshold is crossed, there will be an increased number of updates
somewhere within the BGP system, and hence an increased risk of paths
being dampened which otherwise would not.
So, in presence of significant flap-damping deployment and given the
uncertainty of what the optimum is, it is reasonable to err towards
selecting a value of the MRAI timer significantly higher than the
optimum.
However, given that flap-damping increasingly is discouraged
[RIPE-378] in Internet routing, this particular need to be
conservative in the choice of MRAI timer value may be less important.
2.4. Current Status of the MRAI
The current recommended value of 30s may be far higher than is
optimal for the Internet, based on observations of certain parameters
related to its topology. In [mrai-final] it is suggested that the
optimal value may be between 5s ('semi-safe') to 15s ('safe'). The
estimation of the 'safe' value here is of no relevance if WRATE is
universally deployed, as in such a case the 'semi-safe' value will be
the same as the 'safe' value. Further empirical work by the same
authors [mrai-internet] suggests that the optimal, Internet MRAI may
be below 5s.
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
Further, [BGP-STAB] and [Potaroo0607] argue that operational
conditions (e.g. different routers using different MRAI values) mean
the MRAI is having an adverse effect even on the number of messages
sent, and so further exacerbating convergence problems in the global
BGP system, such as path hunting. The [BGP-STAB] document goes
further still and argues that MRAI be deprecated in favour of some
better way of damping BGP UPDATES, however there are no clear
proposals before the IDR as of this writing for such changes to BGP.
3. Risk Evaluation in the Choice of MRAI Time
Though there is an optimum value for the MRAI, it's unlikely that it
can be determined empirically or otherwise for the general Internet.
It may even not be possible, as the optimum MRAI will differ for
different subsets of the Internet. Some degree of guesstimation at a
reasonable value for the MRAI is required, which is an exercise in
risk; whether to err towards fast convergence at the risk of a
disproportionate increase in BGP messaging, or to err to the side of
an optimal number of messages at the expense of convergence.
Arguably, economising on bandwidth and control-plane processing power
is of less importance than the convergence time of BGP, compared to
times past. Presuming this, any new recommendations for the MRAI
should seek to err slightly to the side of convergence, rather than
erring towards minimising BGP traffic.
Further, if we assume most implementations apply the MRAI to
withdrawals, then the Internet BGP topology effectively is WRATE-
enabled, and [mrai-final] suggests there is even less benefit to
erring toward a higher MRAI.
There may be risks in mismatched MRAI values between speakers in an
AS as revised MRAI values are deployed. The MRAI values in RFC4271
[BGP] were deliberately specified to be lower for iBGP than for eBGP,
so as to allow interior routing to converge while minimising the
effect on eBGP state. So with mismatched values there is an
increased risk that the external stability of an AS's routes would be
affected by transient, internal states.
This last risk suggests that the existing iBGP/VPN values should be
the lower-bound for any conservative revision of the eBGP MRAI value.
The most definite risk of lowering the MRAI is the increased risk of
flap-damping, if the value is set too much below the optimum.
Therefore, taking into account estimations of that optimum is
required. That said, at least one BGP implementation by default does
not apply any MRAI at all.
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
4. Recommendations on the MRAI
The suggested default values for the
MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer given in RFC4271 [BGP] are revised
to be 5s or less for eBGP connections, and 1s or less for iBGP
connections, for use on Internet topologies.
These values may not be suitable for topologies which differ from the
Internet, be that in scale, arrangement or otherwise. Such non-
Internet, BGP topologies likely would have lower optimum values,
assuming they are always significantly smaller in scale than the
Internet BGP topology. Hence, implementations SHOULD allow the MRAI
value to be configured administratively on a per-AFI/SAFI basis, as
well as a per-peer basis.
Given the beneficial effects on convergence time, implementations MAY
exempt withdrawals from the MRAI timer.
5. IANA Considerations
There are no requests made to IANA in this document.
6. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security considerations.
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Manav Bhatia for his helpful review
and comments; as well as Robert Raszuk, Samita Chakrabarti, Danny
McPherson and Jeffrey Haas for their useful comments; dissenting or
otherwise.
The authors of the cited documents are thanked for their
contributions to the understanding of BGP, of which this document is
a simple summary.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[BGP] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, February 2001.
8.2. Informative References
[BGP-STAB]
Li, T. and G. Huston, "BGP Stability Improvements",
I-D draft-li-bgp-stability, June 2007.
[BGP-DAMP]
Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route
Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998.
[Potaroo0607]
Huston, G., "Damping BGP", June 2007,
<http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2007-06/dampbgp.html>.
[RIPE-378]
Smith, P. and P. Panigl, "RIPE RRG: Recommendations on
Route-flap Damping", May 2006,
<http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-378.html>.
[bgp-converge]
Griffin, T. and B. Premore, "An Experimental Analysis of
BGP Convergence Time", In Proceedings of ICNP pages 53-61,
November 2001,
<http://www.ssfnet.org/Papers/icnp-2001.pdf>.
[mrai-final]
Qiu, J., Hao, R., and X. Li, "An Experimental Study of the
BGP Rate-limiting Timer", Bell Labs Technical Memo ITD-03-
44604H, June 2003,
<http://www.net-glyph.org/~qiu/public_html/
mrai_final.pdf>.
[mrai-internet]
Qiu, J., Hao, R., and X. Li, "The Optimal Rate-Limiting
Timer of BGP for Routing Convergence", IEICE TRANS.
Comm. Vol.E88-B, No. 4, April 2005,
<http://rio.ecs.umass.edu/~jqiu/mrai_journal.pdf>.
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
Author's Address
Paul Jakma
Sun Microsystems
Springfield
Linlithgow, West Lothian EH49 7LR
Scotland
Phone: +44 1506 673150
Email: paul.jakma@sun.com
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations November 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Jakma Expires May 22, 2009 [Page 9]
