In search for an appropriate granularity to model routing policies

Routing policies are typically partitioned into a few classes that capture the most common practices in use today[1]. Unfortunately, it is known that the reality of routing policies[2] and peering relationships is far more complex than those few classes[1,3]. We take the next step of searching for the appropriate granularity at which policies should be modeled. For this purpose, we study how and where to configure per-prefix policies in an AS-level model of the Internet, such that the selected paths in the model are consistent with those observed in BGP data from multiple vantage points. By comparing business relationships with per-prefix filters, we investigate the role and limitations of business relationships as a model for policies. We observe that popular locations for filtering correspond to valleys where no path should be propagated according to inferred business relationships. This result reinforces the validity of the valley-free property used for business relationships inference. However, given the sometimes large path diversity ASs have, business relationships do not contain enough information to decide which path will be chosen as the best. To model how individual ASs choose their best paths, we introduce a new abstraction: next-hop atoms. Next-hop atoms capture the different sets of neighboring ASs an AS uses for its best routes. We show that a large fraction of next-hop atoms correspond to per-neighbor path choices. A non-negligible fraction of path choices, however, correspond to hot-potato routing and tie-breaking within the BGP decision process, very detailed aspects of Internet routing.

[1]  Anja Feldmann,et al.  Building an AS-topology model that captures route diversity , 2006, SIGCOMM.

[2]  Lixin Gao,et al.  On inferring and characterizing Internet routing policies , 2003, Journal of Communications and Networks.

[3]  Dmitri V. Krioukov,et al.  AS relationships: inference and validation , 2006, CCRV.

[4]  Renata Teixeira,et al.  Dynamics of hot-potato routing in IP networks , 2004, SIGMETRICS '04/Performance '04.

[5]  kc claffy,et al.  Analysis of RouteViews BGP data: policy atoms , 2001 .

[6]  Matthew Roughan,et al.  Traffic Matrix Reloaded: Impact of Routing Changes , 2005, PAM.

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

[8]  Renata Teixeira,et al.  In search of path diversity in ISP networks , 2003, IMC '03.

[9]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  Characterizing the Internet hierarchy from multiple vantage points , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[10]  Jennifer Rexford,et al.  BGP routing policies in ISP networks , 2005, IEEE Network.

[11]  Daniel Massey,et al.  An analysis of BGP multiple origin AS (MOAS) conflicts , 2001, IMW '01.

[12]  Steve Uhlig,et al.  Quantifying the BGP Routes Diversity Inside a Tier-1 Network , 2006, Networking.

[13]  Jia Wang,et al.  Towards an accurate AS-level traceroute tool , 2003, SIGCOMM '03.

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

[15]  Yehuda Afek,et al.  On the structure and application of BGP policy atoms , 2002, IMW '02.

[16]  Lixin Gao On inferring autonomous system relationships in the internet , 2001, TNET.

[17]  Yin Zhang,et al.  On AS-level path inference , 2005, SIGMETRICS '05.

[18]  Steve Uhlig,et al.  Modeling the routing of an autonomous system with C-BGP , 2005, IEEE Network.

[19]  Thomas Erlebach,et al.  Computing the types of the relationships between autonomous systems , 2007, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw..

[20]  Walter Willinger,et al.  Towards capturing representative AS-level Internet topologies , 2002, SIGMETRICS '02.