Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id SAA18492; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 18:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id SAA28787; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 18:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA26495 for bgp-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 22:23:28 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f Message-Id: <199606212226.PAA26885@hubbub.cisco.com> To: curtis@ans.net Cc: bgp@ans.net Subject: Re: Withdrawls and announcements attempt 2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jun 96 17:50:31 EDT." <199606212150.RAA04203@brookfield.ans.net> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 15:23:18 PDT From: Yakov Rekhter Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Curtis, > Moved to bgp list. Thanks. > > Please note that propagating withdrawals to all neighbors is > > *not* the problem we are trying to solve now, as such propagation > > accounts for only a small fraction of the total withdraws (see attached). > > > > In fact, we've yet to see any empirical evidences that propagating > > withdrawals to all neighbors is a problem. > > At MaeEast in many cases 30 to 50 peers hear a withdrawl and then > withdraw the same route thenselves. You would expect to see N times > as many withdraws as was needed for a given withdrawl depending on who > withdrew it and how many Ciscos they peer with. As was indicated in the original message from MERIT, this accounts for only a small fraction of the total withdraws (for the benefits of those not on the NANOG list I attached the original message from MERIT). So, to repeat what I said in my previous note let's focus on what seems to be a much more important issue - ~5*10^6 daily withdraws. > If you look at the stats and add up the withdraws and announces and > take the ratio you have a ratio of about 12. Someone with a Cisco > router that hears a lot of withdraws will have a very high ratio. > Someone that flaps a lot will just cause others to have a very high > ratio. The ratio of totals should be in line with the average number > of Cisco peers. > > This should be sufficient emperical evidence to consider fixing the > problem. What you presented is a number - 12. This number, by itself, tells very little about the *operational* impact of these withdraws. To assess the operational impact you need to provide such parameters as extra bandwidth consumed by these withdraws, and extra CPU load imposed by processing these withdraws. Yakov. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- using template mhl.format -- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 12:04:59 EDT To: nanog@merit.edu From: Craig Labovitz Subject: Re: Withdrawls and announcements attempt 2 Return-Path: nanog-owner@merit.edu X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96 Reply-To: labovit@merit.edu In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:24:25 -0400. <9606211524.AA14100@heineken.engeast> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Precedence: bulk A quick clarification -- the liberal BGP widthraw policy implemented by Cisco (and a few other vendors) only accounts for a small fraction of the ~5 million plus daily withdraws in the default-free Internet. The real source of all these spurious withdraws remains a bit of a mystery. Our data shows some strange sort of 30 second looping/oscilation behavior is taking place. Possible causes of this behavior include configuration errors, unexpected IGP-EGP interactions, vendor implementation bugs, and problems inherent with the BGP protocol itself. The source of the millions of BGP withdraws is NOT Cisco's "liberal BGP withdraw" policy -- this generates a fairly minor number of extra withdraws (O(n) per router), and there are a quite a few valid and compelling reasons for wanting implementing BGP this way. - Craig at Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:24:25 EDT, you wrote: > > "Justin W. Newton" writes > > * Its /a little/ more complex than that. The RFC does /not/ call for closin g > * down a BGP session when you change your route filters. Cisco's have to do > * this, but its not part of the RFC. So, if I, for the sake of argument, > * added a new filter /after/ I made an announcement to someone I would have to > * somewhere keep track of the fact that I made the announcement. It seems t o > * me that this could get to be a bit memory intensive (keeping track of the > * state of every announcement made to every peer). > * > * This leads me to wonder whether if we had infinite memory (just for the sa ke > * of argument), if it would be more processor intensive to keep track of all > * of your announcements or if the overhead invloved in dealing with withdraw ls > * that don't affect me is less. > > There are however vendors out there that do exactly what you described > above and can therefore change policies and have them take effect > without having to take down a BGP session. And they only withdraw a > prefix if they sent an update for it in the first place. > > -Marten -- Craig Labovitz labovit@merit.edu Merit Network, Inc. (313) 764-0252 (office) 4251 Plymouth Road, Suite C. (313) 747-3745 (fax) Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 > > Curtis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id RAA18094; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id RAA28012; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA27326 for bgp-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 21:53:01 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f Message-Id: <199606212150.RAA04203@brookfield.ans.net> To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: curtis@ans.net, bgp@ans.net Subject: Re: Withdrawls and announcements attempt 2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:34:12 PDT." <199606211737.KAA29189@hubbub.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:50:31 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Yakov, Moved to bgp list. > Please note that propagating withdrawals to all neighbors is > *not* the problem we are trying to solve now, as such propagation > accounts for only a small fraction of the total withdraws (see attached). > > In fact, we've yet to see any empirical evidences that propagating > withdrawals to all neighbors is a problem. At MaeEast in many cases 30 to 50 peers hear a withdrawl and then withdraw the same route thenselves. You would expect to see N times as many withdraws as was needed for a given withdrawl depending on who withdrew it and how many Ciscos they peer with. > Now could we return (perhaps on the BGP list) to the discussion > about the *real* issue we need to solve - ~5*10^6 daily withdraws. > > Yakov. If you look at the stats and add up the withdraws and announces and take the ratio you have a ratio of about 12. Someone with a Cisco router that hears a lot of withdraws will have a very high ratio. Someone that flaps a lot will just cause others to have a very high ratio. The ratio of totals should be in line with the average number of Cisco peers. This should be sufficient emperical evidence to consider fixing the problem. The ratio of 12:1 out of does not seem out of line fora weighted average number of the number of Ciscos that a given flapper flaps to. I think some of the smaller providers do have less peers than the major providers, so this does seem reasonable to me. Curtis Peer Packets Ann With Ann+With ANS (690) 2572 8226 5732 13958 Advantis (2685) 83 76 59 135 Alternet (701) 16370 85551 145672 231223 BBNplanet (AS1) 4223 5643 22486 28129 BayNetworks (6205) 241 306 321 627 CAIS (3491) 3043 1285 197688 198973 CWInet (4445) 2875 67 267503 267570 CWix (5683) 2317 527 31636 32163 CWix (5683) 2970 486 141007 141493 Compuserve (4183) 18 3 19 22 DIGEX (2548) 1442 253 9323 9576 DRAnet (1746) 2 2 0 2 DialNet (5552) 85 35 113 148 ESnet1 (293) 237 130 682 812 ESnet2 (293) 243 282 509 791 EUNet (286) 1931 7167 4577 11744 Erols (6079) 869 100 11438 11538 Exodus (3967) 1443 16884 16860 33744 HLCnet (4565) 2685 11 112495 112506 INAP.net (5646) 4017 1276 115737 117013 INSnet (5378) 588 5 7812 7817 IOSnet (5000) 23 20 7 27 IconNet (3951) 12 9 15 24 Interpath (3407) 2895 174 266051 266225 MAI (6082) 8 29 0 29 MCI (3561) 8687 24039 198729 222768 Net99 (3830) 2858 0 217279 217279 Netcom (2551) 7040 23747 213759 237506 Netrail (4006) 29 54 12 66 PIPEX (1849) 14858 2890 366578 369468 PrimeNet (3549) 15 47 29 76 SPRINT (1239) 10561 34816 94378 129194 USCyber (4136) 2921 185 157816 158001 VoiceNet (3932) 60 57 373 430 Totals 214382 2606695 ratio: 12.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id NAA19852; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id NAA19770; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:53:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA12080 for bgp-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:47:20 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f To: IETF-Announce:; Cc: RFC Editor Cc: Internet Architecture Board Cc: bgp@ans.net From: The IESG Subject: Protocol Action: BGP communities attribute to Proposed Standard Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 13:46:03 -0400 Message-Id: <9606191346.aa27927@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft "BGP communities attribute" as a Proposed Standard. The IESG also approved the publication of BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing as an Informational RFC. These documents are the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact person is Joel Halpern. Technical Summary The new community attribute for BGP provides a mechanism for labelling BGP advertisements with common attributes. The accompanying usage document provides information on one situation where this attribute is useful. Working Group Summary There was no significant dissent in the working group. The group agreed that this appeared to be a useful addition to BGP. Protocol Quality The protocol has been reviewed by the Routing Area Director, Joel M. Halpern, and appears sound. There are at least two independent implementations (cisco and BayNetworks, per the WG Chair). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id KAA29112; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:06:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id KAA01342; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA12080 for bgp-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:04:26 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce:; Cc: bgp@ans.net From: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 09:41:30 -0400 Message-Id: <9606140941.aa17187@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, Version 2 Author(s) : Y. Rekhter, P. Traina Filename : draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt Pages : 110 Date : 06/13/1996 The Inter-Domain Routing Protocol (IDRP) permits a routing domain to exchange information with other routing domains to facilitate the operation of the routing and relaying functions of the Network Layer. Internet-Drafts are available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt". A URL for the Internet-Draft is: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt Internet-Drafts directories are located at: o Africa Address: ftp.is.co.za (196.4.160.8) o Europe Address: nic.nordu.net (192.36.148.17) Address: ftp.nis.garr.it (193.205.245.10) o Pacific Rim Address: munnari.oz.au (128.250.1.21) o US East Coast Address: ds.internic.net (198.49.45.10) o US West Coast Address: ftp.isi.edu (128.9.0.32) Internet-Drafts are also available by mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ds.internic.net. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ds.internic.net can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e., documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. For questions, please mail to Internet-Drafts@cnri.reston.va.us. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ds.internic.net" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19960613165124.I-D@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt"; site="ds.internic.net"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19960613165124.I-D@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id PAA08318; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id PAA10423; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA12272 for bgp-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:41:49 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f Message-Id: <199606131941.MAA01928@puli.cisco.com> From: pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina) To: bgp@ans.net Subject: draft-ietf-idr-idrp2-00.txt Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:41:34 -0700 Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net The draft for IDRP v2 (for IPv4/v6) will be in the archives shortly. Until then, it may be found at ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/yakov/idrp2.txt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id NAA09848; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id NAA16263; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA19202 for bgp-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:58:33 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f Message-Id: <199606061701.KAA24670@hubbub.cisco.com> To: bgp@ans.net Subject: Re: IDR WG agenda In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Jun 96 14:01:44 PDT." <199606052101.OAA11628@lint.cisco.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 09:58:19 PDT From: Yakov Rekhter Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net > The only piece would be a document status update as we've had several > documents move along since last meeting. I'll add this to the agenda. Yakov. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id VAA24687; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id VAA00575; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:56:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA31272 for bgp-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 01:53:52 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f From: bmanning@isi.edu (Bill Manning) Message-Id: <199606060153.AA28974@zephyr.isi.edu> Subject: Re: IDR WG agenda To: bgp@ans.net Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 18:53:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199606051446.HAA10117@puli.cisco.com> from "Yakov Rekhter" at Jun 5, 96 07:46:59 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net > > Please let me know if there are any other items you'd like to discuss. > > Yakov. > I had put together a draft on documenting BGP options. There was a small flurry of discussion and then general lethargy set in. I'd like to see the group take one more look at this and then push this on as an FYI. --bill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id RAA19939; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id RAA25364; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA32104 for bgp-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:01:02 GMT Message-Id: <199606052101.OAA11628@lint.cisco.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lint.cisco.com: Host LOCALHOST didn't use HELO protocol To: bgp@ans.net Subject: Re: IDR WG agenda In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 05 Jun 1996 07:46:59 PDT. <199606051446.HAA10117@puli.cisco.com> From: Tony Bates X-Phone: +1 703 742 3982 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 14:01:44 -0700 Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net The only piece would be a document status update as we've had several documents move along since last meeting. --Tony Yakov Rekhter writes: * Folks, * * We'll have one slot for the IDR WG in Montreal. The only item I'd like * to talk is to give a brief update on IDRP for IPv[46] (I am going to * submit a new I-D next week). * * Please let me know if there are any other items you'd like to discuss. * * Thanks. * * Yakov. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Received: from merit.edu by nic.merit.edu (8.7.1/nic-1.0) id KAA12964; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p-o.ans.net (p-o.ans.net [147.225.1.111]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id KAA16158; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by p-o.ans.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA42228 for bgp-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 14:52:37 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: p-o.ans.net: majordom set sender to bgp-owner using -f Message-Id: <199606051446.HAA10117@puli.cisco.com> To: bgp@ans.net Subject: IDR WG agenda Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 07:46:59 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Folks, We'll have one slot for the IDR WG in Montreal. The only item I'd like to talk is to give a brief update on IDRP for IPv[46] (I am going to submit a new I-D next week). Please let me know if there are any other items you'd like to discuss. Thanks. Yakov. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -