分享
 
 
 

RFC1093 - NSFNET routing architecture

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

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

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

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

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

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.

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 RFC1092, February 1989.

[2] Mills, D., "Autonomous Confederations", RFC975, M/A-COM

Linkabit, February 1986.

[3] Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Formal Specification", RFC904,

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.

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

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)

#

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

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有