[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]
PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata ExistInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. PelsserRequest for Comments: 7196 R. BushCategory: Standards Track Internet Initiative JapanISSN: 2070-1721 K. Patel Cisco Systems P. Mohapatra Sproute Networks O. Maennel Loughborough University May 2014 Making Route Flap Damping UsableAbstract Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed to reduce BGP churn in routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for being well connected because topological richness amplifies the number of update messages exchanged. Many operators have turned RFD off. Based on experimental measurement, this document recommends adjusting a few RFD algorithmic constants and limits in order to reduce the high risks with RFD. The result is damping a non-trivial amount of long-term churn without penalizing well-behaved prefixes' normal convergence process.Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7196.Pelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7196 Making Route Flap Damping Usable May 2014Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. RFD Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Suppress Threshold versus Churn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Maximum Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61. Introduction Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed (see [RIPE178] and [RFC2439]) and subsequently implemented to reduce BGP churn in routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for being well connected because topological richness amplifies the number of update messages exchanged, see [MAO2002]. Subsequently, many operators turned RFD off; see [RIPE378]. Based on the measurements of [PELSSER2011], [RIPE580] now recommends that RFD is usable with some changes to the parameters. Based on the same measurements, this document recommends adjusting a few RFD algorithmic constants and limits. The result is damping of a non- trivial amount of long-term churn without penalizing well-behaved prefixes' normal convergence process. Very few prefixes are responsible for a large amount of the BGP messages received by a router; see [HUSTON2006] and [PELSSER2011]. For example, the measurements in [PELSSER2011] showed that only 3% ofPelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7196 Making Route Flap Damping Usable May 2014 the prefixes were responsible for 36% percent of the BGP messages at a router with real feeds from a Tier-1 provider and an Internet Exchange Point during a one-week experiment. Only these very frequently flapping prefixes should be damped. The values recommended in Section 6 achieve this. Thus, RFD can be enabled, and some churn reduced. The goal is to, with absolutely minimal change, ameliorate the danger of current RFD implementations and use. It is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and thorough approach to flap reduction.1.1. Suggested Reading It is assumed that the reader understands BGP [RFC4271] and Route Flap Damping [RFC2439]. This work is based on the measurements in the paper [PELSSER2011]. A survey of Japanese operators' use of RFD and their desires is reported in [RFD-SURVEY].2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] only when they appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English words, without normative meaning.3. RFD Parameters The following RFD parameters are common to all implementations. Some may be tuned by the operator, some not. There is currently no consensus on a single set of default values. +--------------------------+----------+-------+---------+ | Parameter | Tunable? | Cisco | Juniper | +--------------------------+----------+-------+---------+ | Withdrawal | No | 1,000 | 1,000 | | Re-Advertisement | No | 0 | 1,000 | | Attribute Change | No | 500 | 500 | | Suppress Threshold | Yes | 2,000 | 3,000 | | Half-Life (min.) | Yes | 15 | 15 | | Reuse Threshold | Yes | 750 | 750 | | Max Suppress Time (min.) | Yes | 60 | 60 | +--------------------------+----------+-------+---------+ Note: Values without units specified are dimensionless constants. Table 1: Default RFD Parameters of Juniper and CiscoPelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7196 Making Route Flap Damping Usable May 20144. Suppress Threshold versus Churn By turning RFD back on with the values recommended in Section 6, churn is reduced. Moreover, with these values, prefixes going through normal convergence are generally not damped. [PELSSER2011] estimates that, with a suppress threshold of 6,000, the BGP update rate is reduced by 19% compared to a situation without RFD enabled. [PELSSER2011] studies the number of prefixes damped over a week between September 29, 2010 and October 6, 2010. With this 6,000 suppress threshold, 90% fewer prefixes are damped compared to use of a 2,000 threshold. That is, far fewer well-behaved prefixes are damped. Setting the suppress threshold to 12,000 leads to very few damped prefixes (0.22% of the prefixes were damped with a threshold of 12,000 in the experiments in [PELSSER2011], yielding an average hourly update reduction of 11% compared to not using RFD). +---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------------+ | Suppress | Damped | % of Table | Update Rate (one- | | Threshold | Prefixes | Damped | hour bins) | +---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------------+ | 2,000 | 43,342 | 13.16% | 53.11% | | 4,000 | 11,253 | 3.42% | 74.16% | | 6,000 | 4,352 | 1.32% | 81.03% | | 8,000 | 2,104 | 0.64% | 84.85% | | 10,000 | 1,286 | 0.39% | 87.12% | | 12,000 | 720 | 0.22% | 88.74% | | 14,000 | 504 | 0.15% | 89.97% | | 16,000 | 353 | 0.11% | 91.01% | | 18,000 | 311 | 0.09% | 91.88% | | 20,000 | 261 | 0.08% | 92.69% | +---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------------+ Note: the current default Suppress Threshold (2,000) is overly agressive. Table 2: Damped Prefixes vs. Churn, from [PELSSER2011]5. Maximum Penalty It is important to understand that the parameters shown in Table 1 and the implementation's sampling rate impose an upper bound on the penalty value, which we can call the 'computed maximum penalty'.Pelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7196 Making Route Flap Damping Usable May 2014 In addition, BGP implementations have an internal constant, which we will call the 'maximum penalty', and the current computed penalty may not exceed it.6. Recommendations Use of the following values is recommended: Router Maximum Penalty: The internal constant for the maximum penalty value MUST be raised to at least 50,000. Default Configurable Parameters: In order not to break existing operational configurations, existing BGP implementations, including the examples in Table 1, SHOULD NOT change their default values. Minimum Suppress Threshold: Operators that want damping that is much less destructive than the current damping, but still somewhat aggressive, SHOULD configure the Suppress Threshold to no less than 6,000. Conservative Suppress Threshold: Conservative operators SHOULD configure the Suppress Threshold to no less than 12,000. Calculate But Do Not Damp: Implementations MAY have a test mode where the operator can see the results of a particular configuration without actually damping any prefixes. This will allow for fine-tuning of parameters without losing reachability.7. Security Considerations It is well known that an attacker can generate false flapping to cause a victim's prefix(es) to be damped. As the recommendations merely change parameters to more conservative values, there should be no increase in risk. In fact, the parameter change to more conservative values should slightly mitigate the false-flap attack.8. Acknowledgments Nate Kushman initiated this work some years ago. Ron Bonica, Seiichi Kawamura, and Erik Muller contributed useful suggestions.Pelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7196 Making Route Flap Damping Usable May 20149. References9.1. Normative References [MAO2002] Mao, Z., Govidan, R., Varghese, G., and R. Katz, "Route Flap Damping Exacerbates Internet Routing Convergence", In Proceedings of SIGCOMM, August 2002, <http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/ routedampening.pdf>. [PELSSER2011] Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Mohapatra, P., Bush, R., and K. Patel, "Route Flap Damping Made Usable", PAM 2011: Passive and Active Measurement Conference, March 2011, <http://pam2011.gatech.edu/papers/pam2011--Pelsser.pdf>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RIPE378] Smith, P. and P. Panigl, "RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations On Route-flap Damping", RIPE 378, May 2006, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-378>.9.2. Informative References [HUSTON2006] Huston, G., "2005 - A BGP Year in Review", RIPE 52, 2006, <http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-52/presentations/ ripe52-plenary-bgp-review.pdf>. [RFD-SURVEY] Tsuchiya, S., Kawamura, S., Bush, R., and C. Pelsser, "Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey", Work in Progress, June 2012. [RIPE178] Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C., and J. Schmitz, "RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for Coordinated Route-flap Damping Parameters", RIPE 178, February 1998, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-178>.Pelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7196 Making Route Flap Damping Usable May 2014 [RIPE580] Bush, R., Pelsser, C., Kuhne, M., Maennel, O., Mohapatra, P., Patel, K., and R. Evans, "RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendation for Route Flap Damping", RIPE 580, January 2013, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580>.Pelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7196 Making Route Flap Damping Usable May 2014Authors' Addresses Cristel Pelsser Internet Initiative Japan Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105 Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0051 JP Phone: +81 3 5205 6464 EMail: cristel@iij.ad.jp Randy Bush Internet Initiative Japan 5147 Crystal Springs Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 US EMail: randy@psg.com Keyur Patel Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 US EMail: keyupate@cisco.com Pradosh Mohapatra Sproute Networks 41529 Higgins Way Fremont, CA 94539 US EMail: mpradosh@yahoo.com Olaf Maennel Loughborough University Department of Computer Science - N.2.03 Loughborough UK Phone: +44 115 714 0042 EMail: o@maennel.netPelsser, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]