Stabilizing BGP through distributed elimination of recurrent routing loops

Despite years of research, the Internet still lacks a routing protocol with guaranteed termination. As is well-known, decentralization of routing decisions among the Autonomous Systems (ASes) that comprise the Internet may result in permanent oscillations of the state of its routing protocol — the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). Some permanent oscillations are made from routing loops — the propagation of routing messages around the cycles of a network — that come back time and again. We discovered that the routing loop detection capability of BGP can be sharpened to predict which routing loops potentially recur and that the import policies can be adjusted to prevent the recurrence. The resulting protocol, named Self-Stable BGP (SS-BGP), is more stable than BGP. For the broad and common class of isotone routing policies, all permament oscillations are made from recurrent routing loops. For this class of routing policies, SS-BGP terminates. Our simulations with realistic Internet topologies and realistic variations of the Gao-Rexford (GR) inter-AS routing policies show that SS-BGP arrives at stable states at the expense of alterations in the import policies of only a handful of ASes.

[1]  Yong Liao,et al.  Safe Interdomain Routing Under Diverse Commercial Agreements , 2010, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[2]  Deborah Estrin,et al.  Persistent route oscillations in inter-domain routing , 2000, Comput. Networks.

[3]  Jennifer Rexford,et al.  Stable internet routing without global coordination , 2001, TNET.

[4]  Jean-Claude König,et al.  A distributed method for dynamic resolution of BGP oscillations , 2006, Proceedings 20th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium.

[5]  Brighten Godfrey,et al.  Guaranteeing BGP Stability with a Few Extra Paths , 2010, 2010 IEEE 30th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[6]  Mohamed G. Gouda,et al.  Maximizable routing metrics , 1998, Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Network Protocols (Cat. No.98TB100256).

[7]  Sharon Goldberg,et al.  A survey of interdomain routing policies , 2013, CCRV.

[8]  Carolyn L. Talcott,et al.  FSR: formal analysis and implementation toolkit for safe interdomain routing , 2012, TNET.

[9]  Vasileios Giotsas,et al.  Inferring Complex AS Relationships , 2014, Internet Measurement Conference.

[10]  Gordon T. Wilfong,et al.  A safe path vector protocol , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[11]  Ítalo S. Cunha,et al.  Investigating Interdomain Routing Policies in the Wild , 2015, Internet Measurement Conference.

[12]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Resolving inter-domain policy disputes , 2007, SIGCOMM '07.

[13]  Dario Rossi,et al.  Violation of Interdomain Routing Assumptions , 2014, PAM.

[14]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Implications of autonomy for the expressiveness of policy routing , 2007, TNET.

[15]  Ratul Mahajan,et al.  Understanding BGP misconfiguration , 2002, SIGCOMM 2002.

[16]  João Luís Sobrinho,et al.  Correctness of Routing Vector Protocols as a Property of Network Cycles , 2017, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[17]  Gordon T. Wilfong,et al.  The stable paths problem and interdomain routing , 2002, TNET.

[18]  João L. Sobrinho,et al.  An algebraic theory of dynamic network routing , 2005, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[19]  Marina Thottan,et al.  An online scheme for the isolation of BGP misconfiguration errors , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management.

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

[21]  Joan Feigenbaum,et al.  Incentive-compatible interdomain routing , 2006, EC '06.