Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compact inter-domain routing under real-world constraints

  • Published:
annals of telecommunications - annales des télécommunications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to the “natural” growth of the Internet, the scaling properties of today’s inter-domain routing system worsen at a steep rate. Certain operational practices and a number of limitations of the routing protocol itself further exacerbate the scalability problem. In order to address this threat, this paper introduces 2SIDR, a two-step inter-domain routing approach. 2SIDR aims at significantly reducing the state requirements of routers while minimizing the incurred path inflation due to the lack of full routing state. 2SIDR leverages insights from theoretical approaches termed compact routing. But instead of adhering to mathematical constraints 2SIDR takes practical constraints from Internet operations into consideration, i.e., data that is available in practice and business relationships. We call this practical compactness as it deliberately gives up mathematical bounds in order to satisfy real-world requirements. Two variants of 2SIDR were analyzed extensively based on multiple sources of data gathered from the Internet to construct an Internet-scale AS-level topology. Various aspects were analyzed such as the state/stretch trade-off and the effect of observed routing policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A short version of this paper can be found in the proceedings of the 21st International Teletraffic Congress, 2009

  2. This distance can increase, e.g., after depeering events as happened between Level3 and Cogent in 2005, but will on average always be close to 1

References

  1. Rekhter Y, Li T, Hares S,“A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)”, RFC 4271

  2. Houston G, BGP Data, http://bgp.potaroo.net/

  3. Feamster N, Balakrishnan H, Rexford J (2004) “Some Foundational Problems in Interdomain Routing”, HotNets

  4. Internet Topology Map, http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/topology/

  5. Zhang B, Liu R, Massey D, Zhang L (2005) “Collecting the Internet AS-level Topology,” ACM SIGCOMM CCR, special issue on Internet Vital Statistics, January

  6. Cittadini L et al (2010) “Evolution of Internet Address Space Deaggregation: Myths and Reality”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication

  7. Carpenter B, Atkinson R, Flinck H, “Renumbering Still Needs Work”, RFC5887

  8. Fuller V, “Scaling of Internet Routing and Addressing”, APRICOT 2007

  9. Kleinrock L, Kamoun F (1977) Hierarchical routing for large networks: performance evaluation and optimization. Comput Netw 1:155–174

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen Q et al (2002) “The origin of power law in Internet topologies revisited”, IEEE INFOCOM

  11. Bu T, Gao L, Towsley D (2002) “On Characterizing BGP Routing Table Growth”, IEEE Global Internet

  12. Labovitz C, Ahuja A, Bose A, Jahanian F (2000) “Delayed Internet Routing Convergence”, ACM SIGCOMM

  13. Mahajan R, Wetherall D, Anderson T (2002) “Understanding BGP Misconfiguration”, ACM SIGCOMM

  14. Winter R (2009) “Two Steps Towards Practical Compact Routing”, 21st International Teletraffic Congress, September

  15. Norton WB, “The Art of Peering: The Peering Playbook”, white paper

  16. Subramanian L et al (2005) “HLP: A Next Generation Inter-domain Routing Protocol”, SIGCOMM

  17. Brady A, Cowen L (2006) “Compact Routing on Power Law Graphs with Additive Stretch”, ALENEX

  18. Krioukov D, Fall K, Yang X (2004) “Compact Routing on Internet-Like Graphs”, INFOCOM

  19. Moskowitz R, Nikander P, “Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture”, RFC 4423

  20. Krioukov D, Fall K, Claffy Kc, Brady A (2007) “On Compact Routing for the Internet”, ACM SIGCOMM CCR

  21. Ballani H, Francis P, Zhang X (2007) “A Study of Prefix Hijacking and Interception in the Internet”, SIGCOMM

  22. Aiello W, Ioannidis J, McDaniel P (2003) “Origin Authentication in Interdomain Routing”, CCS

  23. University of Oregon Route Views Project, http://www.routeviews.org/

  24. Verkaik P et al, “Beyond CIDR Aggregation”, CAIDA technical report TR-2004-01

  25. Andersen D et al (2007) “Holding the Internet Accountable”, HotNets

  26. Norton WB, “The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem”, white paper

  27. Li T (2007) “Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing”, Internet Draft, draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01, July

  28. Caesar M, Rexford J (2005) “BGP routing policies in ISP networks”, IEEE Network Magazine

  29. Caesar M (2006) “ROFL: Routing on Flat Labels”, SIGCOMM

  30. Gao L, Wang F (2002) “The Extent of AS Path Inflation by Routing Policies”, IEEE Global Internet Symposium

  31. Villamizar C, Chandra R, Govindan R, “BGP Route Flap Damping”, RFC 2439 November 1998, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2439.txt

  32. Enachescu M, Wang M, Goel A (2008) “Reducing Maximum Stretch in Compact Routing”, IEEE INFOCOM

  33. Routing Information Service, http://www.ripe.net/ris/

  34. Gao L (2000) “On Inferring Automonous System Relationships in the Internet”, IEEE Global Internet, Novemeber

  35. van Beijnum I, Winter R (2009) “A BGP Inter-AS Cost Attribute”, Internet Draft, work in progress, draft-van-beijnum-idr-iac, March

  36. NEC Labs Topology Project, http://topology.neclab.eu/

  37. Tangmunarunkit H et al (2001) “Does AS Size Determine Degree in AS Topology?”, ACM CCR

  38. Jen D et al (2008) “Towards a New Internet Routing Architecture: Arguments for Separating Edges from Transit Core”, HotNets

  39. Ballani H et al (2008) “ViAggre: Making Routers Last Longer!”, HotNets

  40. Farinacci D et al (2009) “Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)”, Internet Draft, work in progress, draft-ietf-lisp, September

  41. Zhang X et al (2006) “Scaling Global IP Routing with the Core Router-Integrated Overlay,” ICNP

  42. Menth M, Hartmann M, Hoefling M (2010) “FIRMS: A Mapping System for Future Internet Routing”, JSAC Special Issue on Internet Routing Scalability

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NEC Laboratories Europe, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany

    Rolf Winter

Authors
  1. Rolf Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rolf Winter.

Additional information

The research results presented herein have received support from Trilogy (http://www.trilogy-project.org), a research project partially funded by the European Community under its Seventh Framework Programme.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Winter, R. Compact inter-domain routing under real-world constraints. Ann. Telecommun. 66, 45–57 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-010-0205-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-010-0205-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation