GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1093

Network Working Group H.W. Braun Request for Comments: 1093 Merit

                                                         February 1989
                  The NSFNET Routing Architecture

Status of this Memo

 This document describes the routing architecture for the NSFNET
 centered around the new NSFNET Backbone, with specific emphasis on
 the interface between the backbone and its attached networks.
 Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Introduction

 This document describes the routing architecture for the NSFNET
 centered around the new NSFNET Backbone, with specific emphasis on
 the interface between the backbone and its attached networks.  It
 reflects and augments thoughts described in [1], discussions during
 the Internet Engineering Task Force meeting at the San Diego
 Supercomputing Center in March 1988, discussions on mailing lists,
 especially on a backbone/regional network working group mailing list,
 and a final discussion held at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in
 Yorktown, NY, on the 21st of March 1988.  The Yorktown meeting was
 attended by Hans-Werner Braun (Merit), Scott Brim (Cornell
 University), Mark Fedor (NYSERNet), Jeff Honig (Cornell University),
 and Jacob Rekhter (IBM).  Thanks also to: Milo Medin (NASA), John Moy
 (Proteon) and Greg Satz (Cisco) for discussing this document by email
 and/or phone.
 Understanding of [1] is highly recommended prior to reading this
 document.

1. Routing Overview

 The new NSFNET backbone forms the core of the overall NSFNET, which
 connects to regional networks (or regional backbones) as well as to
 peer networks (other backbones like the NASA Science Network or the
 ARPANET).  The NSFNET core uses a SPF based internal routing
 protocol, adapted from the IS-IS protocol submitted by ANSI for
 standardization to the ISO.  The ANSI IS-IS protocol is based upon
 work done at Digital Equipment Corporation.  Its adaptation to the
 Internet environment requires additional definitions, most notably to
 the addressing structure, which will be described in a later
 document.  This adaptation was largely done by Jacob Rekhter of IBM
 Research in Yorktown, NY. The RCP/PSP routing architecture was
 largely implemented by Rick Boivie and his colleagues at IBM TCS in

Braun [Page 1] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

 Milford, CT.  The adaptation of EGP to the NSS routing code and the
 new requirements was done jointly by Jeff Honig (who spent about a
 week to work on this at IBM Research) and Jacob Rekhter.  Jeff is
 integrating the changes done for the new EGP requirements into the
 "gated" distributions.
 The IGP derives routing tables from Internet address information.
 This information is flooded throughout the NSFNET core, and the
 individual NSS nodes create or update their routing information after
 running the SPF algorithm over the flooded information.  A detailed
 description of the NSFNET backbone IGP will be documented in a future
 document.
 The routing interface between the NSFNET core and regional backbones
 as well as peer networks utilizes the Exterior Gateway Protocol
 (EGP).  The EGP/IGP consistency and integrity at the interface points
 is ensured by filtering mechanisms according to individual nodal
 routing policy data bases [1].  EGP is selected as the routing
 interface of choice between the NSFNET backbone and its regional
 attachments due to its widespread implementation as well its ability
 to utilize autonomous system designators and to allow for effective
 firewalls between systems.  In the longer run the hope is to replace
 the EGP interface with a new inter Autonomous System protocol. Such a
 new protocol should also allow to move the filtering of network
 numbers or Autonomous Network number groups to the regional gateways
 in order for the regional gateways to decide as to what routing
 information they wish to receive.
 A general model is to ensure consistent routing information between
 peer networks.  This means that, e.g., the NSFNET core will have the
 same sets of Internet network numbers in its routing tables as are
 present in the ARPANET core.  However, the redistribution of this
 routing information is tightly controlled and based on Autonomous
 System numbers.  For example, ARPANET routes with the ARPANET
 Autonomous System number will not be redistributed into regional or
 other peer networks.  If an NSFNET internal path exists to such a
 network known to the ARPANET it may be redistributed into regional
 networks, subject to further policy verification. Generally it may be
 necessary to have different trust models for peer and subordinate
 networks, while giving a greater level of trust to peer networks.
 The described use of EGP, which is further elaborated on in [1]
 requires bidirectional translation of network information between the
 IGP in use and EGP.

2. Conclusions reached during the discussions

 The following conclusions were reached during the meeting and in

Braun [Page 2] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

 subsequent discussions:
    No DDN-only routes (ARPANET/MILNET) shall be announced into the
    regional backbones.  This is a specific case of the ability to
    suppress information from specific Autonomous Systems, as
    described later.
    Regional backbones are required to use an unique Autonomous System
    number.  Announcements from non-sanctioned autonomous systems,
    relative to a particular site, will not be believed and will
    instead trigger an alarm to the Network Operations Center.
    Regional backbone attachments must not require routes to local
    subnets.  This means that the locally attached network needs to
    use a flat space, without subnet bits, at least from the NSS point
    of view.  The reason for this is that the EGP information
    exchanged between the regional gateway and the NSS cannot include
    subnet information. Therefore the NSS has no knowledge of remote
    subnets.  The safest way to get around this limitation is to use a
    non-subnetted network (like a separate Class-C network) at the
    interface between a regional backbone and the NSFNET backbone.
    The other way is to use Proxy-ARP while having just the NSS think
    that the network is not subnetted. In the latter case care must be
    taken so that the E-PSP uses the proper local IP broadcast
    address.
    Routing information received by the NSS from regional gateways
    will be verified on both network number and autonomous system
    number.
    Metric reconstitution is done on a per-network basis.  The NSS
    will construct the fixed metric it will use for a given network
    number from its internal data base.  Network metrics given to the
    NSS via EGP will be ignored.  The metrics used are a result of an
    ordered list of preferred paths as supplied by the regional
    backbones and the attached campuses.  This metric is of relevance
    only to the NSFNET core itself.  The mechanisms are further
    explained in [1].
    Global metric reconstitution by Autonomous System numbers is
    necessary in specific cases, such as peer networks.  An example is
    that ARPANET routes will be reconstituted to a global metric, as
    determined by the NSS.
    EGP announcements into regional networks will use a fixed metric.
    The metric used shall be "128."  The 128-metric is somewhat
    arbitrarily chosen to be high enough so that a regional backbone
    will get a metric high enough from the NSFNET Core AS to allow a

Braun [Page 3] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

    comparison against other (most likely internal) routes. "128" is
    also consistent with [2].
    Peer network routes (e.g., ARPANET routes) are propagated through
    the NSS structure.
    No DEFAULT routing information is distributed within the NSFNET
    backbone, as the NSFNET core has the combined routing knowledge of
    the attached regional and peer networks.
    We do not expect the requirement for damping of routing update
    frequencies, at least initially.  The frequency of net up/down
    changes combined with the available bandwidth and CPU capacity do
    not let the frequency of SPF floodings appear as being a major
    problem.  Simple metric changes as heard by a NSS via EGP will not
    trigger updates.
    An allowed list of Source Autonomous System information will be
    used to convert from the IGP to EGP, on a Destination Autonomous
    System number basis, to allow for specific exclusion of definable
    remote Autonomous System information.
    EGP must only announce networks for which the preferred path is
    via the IGP.  This means in particular that the EGP peer will
    never announce via EGP what it learned via EGP on the same
    interface, not even if the information was received from a third
    EGP peer.  This will avoid the back-distribution of information
    learned via that same interface.  The EGP peers of regional
    gateways must only announce information belonging to their own
    Autonomous System.
    EGP will be used in interior mode only.
    The regional backbones are responsible for generating DEFAULT
    routing information at their option.  One possibility is to
    generate an IGP default on a peer base as long as the NSS EGP
    connection is working.  The EGP information will not include a
    special indication for DEFAULT.
    It is highly desirable to have direct peer-peer connections, to
    ease the implementation of a consistent routing data base.
    A single Autonomous System number may not be used with two E-PSPs
    at the same time as long as the two E-PSP's belong to the same
    NSS.  Otherwise the same Autonomous System number can be used from
    multiple points of attachment to the backbone and therefore can
    talk to more than one E-PSP.  However, this may result in
    suboptimal routing unless multiple announcements are properly

Braun [Page 4] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

    engineered according to [1].
    The administrator of the regional networks should be warned that
    improper routing implementations within the region may create
    suboptimal regional routing by using this restriction if no care
    is taken in that:
       Only networks belonging to their own Autonomous System get
       preferred over NSFNET backbone paths; this may extend to a
       larger virtual Autonomous System if backdoor paths are
       effectively implemented.
       IGP implementations should not echo back routing information
       heard via the same path.
       If two regional networks decide to implement a backdoor
       connection between themselves, then the backdoor must have a
       firewall in so that information about their own Autonomous
       System cannot flow in from the other Autonomous System.  That
       is, a regional network must not allow information about
       networks that are interior to its Autonomous System to enter
       via exterior routes.  Likewise, if a regional network is
       connected to the NSFNET via two NSS connections, the NSS cannot
       send back information about the Autonomous System into the
       Autonomous System where it originated.  The end effect is that
       partitions within an Autonomous System will not be healed by
       using the NSS system.  In addition, if three or more regionals
       connect to each other via multiple back-door paths, it is
       imperative that all back-door paths have firewalls that ensure
       that the above restrictions are imposed.  These actions are
       necessary to prevent routing loops that involve the NSS system.
       Furthermore routing information should only be accepted from
       another regional backbone via backdoor paths for networks which
       are positively desired to be reached via this same backdoor
       path.

3. EGP requirements for attached gateways

 The following EGP requirements are necessary for attached gateways;
 they may require changes in existing vendor products:
    IGP to EGP routing exchanges need to be bidirectional.  This
    feature should be selectable by the gateway administrator, and by
    default be configured OFF.
    The metric used when translating from EGP to IGP should be
    configurable.

Braun [Page 5] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

    It must be possible for IGP information to override EGP
    information, so that the internal paths are preferred over
    external paths.  Overriding EGP information on an absolute basis,
    where an external path would never be used as long as there is an
    internal one, is acceptable.
    The ability to do route filtering in the regional gateways on a
    per net basis is highly desirable to allow the regional gateways
    to do a further selection as to what routes they would want to
    redistribute into their network.
    The existence of an EGP connection should optionally lead to the
    generation of a DEFAULT announcement for propagation via the IGP.
    The DEFAULT metric should be independently configurable.
    EGP routes with a metric of "128" should be acceptable.  In most
    cases the regional backbone should ignore the EGP metric.
    The regional gateways must only announce networks known to their
    own Autonomous System.  At the very least they must not
    redistribute routing information via EGP for routes previously
    learned via EGP.
    It would be beneficial if the regional IGPs would tag routes as
    being EGP derived.
    If the EGP peer (e.g., a NSS) terminates the EGP exchange the
    previously learned routes should expire in a timely fashion.

4. References

 [1]  Rekhter, J., "EGP and Policy Based Routing in the New NSFNET
      Backbone", T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corporation, March
      1988.  Also as RFC 1092, February 1989.
 [2]  Mills, D., "Autonomous Confederations", RFC 975, M/A-COM
      Linkabit, February 1986.
 [3]  Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Formal Specification", RFC 904,
      M/A-COM Linkabit, April 1984.
 [4] "Exterior Gateway Protocol, Version 3, Revisions and Extensions,"
      Working Notes of the IETF WG on EGP, Marianne L. Gardner and
      Mike Karels, February 1988.
 [5]  "Management and Operation of the NSFNET Backbone Network,"
      proposal to the National Science Foundation, Merit Computer
      Network, August 1987.

Braun [Page 6] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

5. Appendix

 The following are extensions implemented for the "gated" EGP
 implementation, as designed by Jeff Honig of the Cornell University
 Theory Center.  These extensions are still in the design stage and
 may be changed over time.  They are included here as an
 implementation example.
 Changes to egpneighbor clause:
 egpneighbor <address>   metricin <metric>
                         egpmetricout <egpmetric>
                         ASin <as>
                         ASout <as>
                         nogendefault
                         acceptdefault
                         defaultout <egpmetric>
                         validate
 metricin <metric>
      If specified, the metric of all nets received from this
      neighbor are set to <metric>.
 egpmetricout <egpmetric>
      If specified, the metric of all nets sent to this neighbor,
      except default, are set to <egpmetric>.
 ASin <as>
      If specified, EGP packets received from this neighbor must
      specify this AS number of an EGP error packet is generated.
      The AS number is only checked at neighbor acquisition time.
 ASout <as>
      If specified, this AS number is used on all EGP packets sent
      to thiqs neighbor
 nogendefault
      If specified, this neighbor is not considered when
      generating a gateway default.
 acceptdefault
      If specified, the default will be accepted from this

Braun [Page 7] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

      neighbor, otherwise it will be explicitly ignored.
 defaultout <egpmetric>
      If specified, the internally generated default is send to
      this neighbor in EGP updates.  Default learned from other
      gateways is not propogated.
 validate
      If specifed, all nets learned from this EGP neighbor must
      have a corresponding 'validAS' clause or they will be
      ignored.
 Addition of a validAS clause:
 validAS <net> AS <as> metric <metric>
    This clause specifies which AS a network may be learned from and
    what internal metric to use when the net is learned.  The
    specifies the 'validate' option.  Note that more than one may be
    learned from more than one AS.
 Addition of sendAS and donotsendAS clauses:
    These clauses control the announcement of exterior (currently only
    EGP) routes.  Normally, exterior routes are not considered for
    announcement.  When the 'sendAS' or 'donotsendAS' clauses are
    used, the announce/donotannounce, egpnetsreachable and other
    restrictions still apply.  The 'sendAS' and 'donotsendAS' clauses
    are mutually exclusive by autonomous system.
 sendAS <as0> ASlist <as1> <as2> ...
    This clause specifies that only nets learned from as1, as2, ...
    may be propogated to as0.
 donotsendAS <as0> ASlist <as1> <as2> ...
    This clause specifies that nets learned from as1, as2, ...  may
    not be propogated to <as0>, all other nets are propogated.
 An example of a "/etc/gated.conf" file could include the following:
 #
 RIP supplier
 #
 autonomousystem (regional AS)

Braun [Page 8] RFC 1093 NSFNET Routing Architecture February 1989

 #
 egpneighbor (NSS address) ASin (NSS AS) nogendefault
 metricin (metric)
 #
 sendAS (NSS AS) ASlist (regional AS)
 #
 Where:
      Regional AS   Is the AS number of the regional network
      NSS address   Is the IP address of the local NSS
      NSS AS        Is the AS number the NSFNET backbone
      Metric        Is the gated internal (time delay) metric that
                    EGP learned routes should have.  This is the
                    metric used on output after conversion to a RIP
                    metric.  Some values are:
                                 HELLO   RIP
                                 100     1
                                 148     2
                                 219     3
                                 325     4
                                 481     5

Author's Address:

 Hans-Werner Braun
 University of Michigan
 Computing Center
 1075 Beal Avenue
 Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 Phone: (313) 763-4897
 Email: HWB@MCR.UMICH.EDU

Braun [Page 9]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1093.txt · Last modified: 1989/02/28 00:27 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki