BGP routing policies in ISP networks

The Internet has quickly evolved into a vast global network owned and operated by thousands of different administrative entities. During this time, it became apparent that vanilla shortest path routing would be insufficient to handle the myriad operational, economic, and political factors involved in routing. ISPs began to modify routing configurations to support routing policies - goals held by the router's owner that controlled which routes were chosen and which routes were propagated to neighbors. BGP, originally a simple path vector protocol, was incrementally modified over time with a number of mechanisms to support policies, adding substantially to the complexity. Much of the mystery in BGP comes not only from the protocol complexity, but also from a lack of understanding of the underlying policies and the problems ISPs face that are addressed by these policies. In this article we shed light on goals operators have and their resulting routing policies, why BGP evolved the way it did, and how common policies are implemented using BGP. We also discuss recent and current work in the field that aims to address problems that arise in applying and supporting routing policies.

[1]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  An empirical study of router response to large BGP routing table load , 2002, IMW '02.

[2]  Enke Chen,et al.  An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing , 1996, RFC.

[3]  Nick Feamster,et al.  A model of BGP routing for network engineering , 2004, SIGMETRICS '04/Performance '04.

[4]  Nick Feamster,et al.  BorderGuard: detecting cold potatoes from peers , 2004, IMC '04.

[5]  Enke Chen,et al.  A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation , 1999, RFC.

[6]  Daniel Massey,et al.  Observation and analysis of BGP behavior under stress , 2002, IMW '02.

[7]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  An architecture for stable, analyzable Internet routing , 1999, IEEE Netw..

[8]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Design and implementation of a routing control platform , 2005, NSDI.

[9]  Randy Bush,et al.  Slowing Routing Table Growth by Filtering Based on Address Allocation Policies , 2001 .

[10]  Philip Smith,et al.  RIPE Routing-WG Recommendations for Coordinated Route-flap Damping Parameters , 2005 .

[11]  Constantinos Dovrolis,et al.  Beware of BGP attacks , 2004, CCRV.

[12]  Olivier Bonaventure,et al.  A survey of the utilization of the BGP community attribute , 2002 .

[13]  Nick Feamster,et al.  An empirical study of "bogon" route advertisements , 2005, CCRV.

[14]  Yakov Rekhter,et al.  A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) , 1994, RFC.

[15]  Vijay Ramachandran,et al.  Design principles of policy languages for path vector protocols , 2003, SIGCOMM '03.

[16]  Cengiz Alaettinoglu,et al.  Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) , 1998, RFC.

[17]  Ratul Mahajan,et al.  Negotiation-based routing between neighboring ISPs , 2005, NSDI.

[18]  Olivier Bonaventure,et al.  Open issues in interdomain routing: a survey , 2005, IEEE Network.

[19]  J. Rexford,et al.  Network-Wide Prediction of BGP Routes , 2007, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[20]  Mark Handley,et al.  Towards a Next Generation Inter-domain Routing Protocol , 2004 .

[21]  Doughan Turk,et al.  Configuring BGP to Block Denial-of-Service Attacks , 2004, RFC.

[22]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Detecting BGP configuration faults with static analysis , 2005 .

[23]  Mark Handley,et al.  HLP: a next generation inter-domain routing protocol , 2005, SIGCOMM '05.

[24]  Abraham Silberschatz,et al.  On route selection for interdomain traffic engineering , 2005, IEEE Network.