Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
9190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 7196

Making Route Flap Damping Usable

Pages: 8
Proposed Standard
Errata

Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        C. Pelsser
Request for Comments: 7196                                       R. Bush
Category: Standards Track                      Internet Initiative Japan
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 K. Patel
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            P. Mohapatra
                                                        Sproute Networks
                                                              O. Maennel
                                                 Loughborough University
                                                                May 2014


                    Making Route Flap Damping Usable

Abstract

Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed to reduce BGP churn in routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for being well connected because topological richness amplifies the number of update messages exchanged. Many operators have turned RFD off. Based on experimental measurement, this document recommends adjusting a few RFD algorithmic constants and limits in order to reduce the high risks with RFD. The result is damping a non-trivial amount of long-term churn without penalizing well-behaved prefixes' normal convergence process. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7196.
Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. RFD Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Suppress Threshold versus Churn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Maximum Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Introduction

Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed (see [RIPE178] and [RFC2439]) and subsequently implemented to reduce BGP churn in routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for being well connected because topological richness amplifies the number of update messages exchanged, see [MAO2002]. Subsequently, many operators turned RFD off; see [RIPE378]. Based on the measurements of [PELSSER2011], [RIPE580] now recommends that RFD is usable with some changes to the parameters. Based on the same measurements, this document recommends adjusting a few RFD algorithmic constants and limits. The result is damping of a non- trivial amount of long-term churn without penalizing well-behaved prefixes' normal convergence process. Very few prefixes are responsible for a large amount of the BGP messages received by a router; see [HUSTON2006] and [PELSSER2011]. For example, the measurements in [PELSSER2011] showed that only 3% of
Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 3
   the prefixes were responsible for 36% percent of the BGP messages at
   a router with real feeds from a Tier-1 provider and an Internet
   Exchange Point during a one-week experiment.  Only these very
   frequently flapping prefixes should be damped.  The values
   recommended in Section 6 achieve this.  Thus, RFD can be enabled, and
   some churn reduced.

   The goal is to, with absolutely minimal change, ameliorate the danger
   of current RFD implementations and use.  It is not a panacea, nor is
   it a deep and thorough approach to flap reduction.

1.1. Suggested Reading

It is assumed that the reader understands BGP [RFC4271] and Route Flap Damping [RFC2439]. This work is based on the measurements in the paper [PELSSER2011]. A survey of Japanese operators' use of RFD and their desires is reported in [RFD-SURVEY].

2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] only when they appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English words, without normative meaning.

3. RFD Parameters

The following RFD parameters are common to all implementations. Some may be tuned by the operator, some not. There is currently no consensus on a single set of default values. +--------------------------+----------+-------+---------+ | Parameter | Tunable? | Cisco | Juniper | +--------------------------+----------+-------+---------+ | Withdrawal | No | 1,000 | 1,000 | | Re-Advertisement | No | 0 | 1,000 | | Attribute Change | No | 500 | 500 | | Suppress Threshold | Yes | 2,000 | 3,000 | | Half-Life (min.) | Yes | 15 | 15 | | Reuse Threshold | Yes | 750 | 750 | | Max Suppress Time (min.) | Yes | 60 | 60 | +--------------------------+----------+-------+---------+ Note: Values without units specified are dimensionless constants. Table 1: Default RFD Parameters of Juniper and Cisco
Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 4

4. Suppress Threshold versus Churn

By turning RFD back on with the values recommended in Section 6, churn is reduced. Moreover, with these values, prefixes going through normal convergence are generally not damped. [PELSSER2011] estimates that, with a suppress threshold of 6,000, the BGP update rate is reduced by 19% compared to a situation without RFD enabled. [PELSSER2011] studies the number of prefixes damped over a week between September 29, 2010 and October 6, 2010. With this 6,000 suppress threshold, 90% fewer prefixes are damped compared to use of a 2,000 threshold. That is, far fewer well-behaved prefixes are damped. Setting the suppress threshold to 12,000 leads to very few damped prefixes (0.22% of the prefixes were damped with a threshold of 12,000 in the experiments in [PELSSER2011], yielding an average hourly update reduction of 11% compared to not using RFD). +---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------------+ | Suppress | Damped | % of Table | Update Rate (one- | | Threshold | Prefixes | Damped | hour bins) | +---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------------+ | 2,000 | 43,342 | 13.16% | 53.11% | | 4,000 | 11,253 | 3.42% | 74.16% | | 6,000 | 4,352 | 1.32% | 81.03% | | 8,000 | 2,104 | 0.64% | 84.85% | | 10,000 | 1,286 | 0.39% | 87.12% | | 12,000 | 720 | 0.22% | 88.74% | | 14,000 | 504 | 0.15% | 89.97% | | 16,000 | 353 | 0.11% | 91.01% | | 18,000 | 311 | 0.09% | 91.88% | | 20,000 | 261 | 0.08% | 92.69% | +---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------------+ Note: the current default Suppress Threshold (2,000) is overly agressive. Table 2: Damped Prefixes vs. Churn, from [PELSSER2011]

5. Maximum Penalty

It is important to understand that the parameters shown in Table 1 and the implementation's sampling rate impose an upper bound on the penalty value, which we can call the 'computed maximum penalty'.
Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 5
   In addition, BGP implementations have an internal constant, which we
   will call the 'maximum penalty', and the current computed penalty may
   not exceed it.

6. Recommendations

Use of the following values is recommended: Router Maximum Penalty: The internal constant for the maximum penalty value MUST be raised to at least 50,000. Default Configurable Parameters: In order not to break existing operational configurations, existing BGP implementations, including the examples in Table 1, SHOULD NOT change their default values. Minimum Suppress Threshold: Operators that want damping that is much less destructive than the current damping, but still somewhat aggressive, SHOULD configure the Suppress Threshold to no less than 6,000. Conservative Suppress Threshold: Conservative operators SHOULD configure the Suppress Threshold to no less than 12,000. Calculate But Do Not Damp: Implementations MAY have a test mode where the operator can see the results of a particular configuration without actually damping any prefixes. This will allow for fine-tuning of parameters without losing reachability.

7. Security Considerations

It is well known that an attacker can generate false flapping to cause a victim's prefix(es) to be damped. As the recommendations merely change parameters to more conservative values, there should be no increase in risk. In fact, the parameter change to more conservative values should slightly mitigate the false-flap attack.

8. Acknowledgments

Nate Kushman initiated this work some years ago. Ron Bonica, Seiichi Kawamura, and Erik Muller contributed useful suggestions.
Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 6

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[MAO2002] Mao, Z., Govidan, R., Varghese, G., and R. Katz, "Route Flap Damping Exacerbates Internet Routing Convergence", In Proceedings of SIGCOMM, August 2002, <http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/ routedampening.pdf>. [PELSSER2011] Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Mohapatra, P., Bush, R., and K. Patel, "Route Flap Damping Made Usable", PAM 2011: Passive and Active Measurement Conference, March 2011, <http://pam2011.gatech.edu/papers/pam2011--Pelsser.pdf>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RIPE378] Smith, P. and P. Panigl, "RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations On Route-flap Damping", RIPE 378, May 2006, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-378>.

9.2. Informative References

[HUSTON2006] Huston, G., "2005 - A BGP Year in Review", RIPE 52, 2006, <http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-52/presentations/ ripe52-plenary-bgp-review.pdf>. [RFD-SURVEY] Tsuchiya, S., Kawamura, S., Bush, R., and C. Pelsser, "Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey", Work in Progress, June 2012. [RIPE178] Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C., and J. Schmitz, "RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for Coordinated Route-flap Damping Parameters", RIPE 178, February 1998, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-178>.
Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 7
   [RIPE580]  Bush, R., Pelsser, C., Kuhne, M., Maennel, O., Mohapatra,
              P., Patel, K., and R. Evans, "RIPE Routing Working Group
              Recommendation for Route Flap Damping", RIPE 580, January
              2013, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580>.
Top   ToC   RFC7196 - Page 8

Authors' Addresses

Cristel Pelsser Internet Initiative Japan Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105 Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0051 JP Phone: +81 3 5205 6464 EMail: cristel@iij.ad.jp Randy Bush Internet Initiative Japan 5147 Crystal Springs Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 US EMail: randy@psg.com Keyur Patel Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 US EMail: keyupate@cisco.com Pradosh Mohapatra Sproute Networks 41529 Higgins Way Fremont, CA 94539 US EMail: mpradosh@yahoo.com Olaf Maennel Loughborough University Department of Computer Science - N.2.03 Loughborough UK Phone: +44 115 714 0042 EMail: o@maennel.net