Internet Protocol: Routing Algorithms

Srinidhi Varadarajan
 Routing
Routing protocol
Goal: determine “good” path 5
(sequence of routers) thru 3
network from source to dest. B C 5
2
A 2 1 F
3
Graph abstraction for 1 2
D E
routing algorithms: 1
z graph nodes are
routers z “good” path:
z graph edges are – typically means
physical links minimum cost path
– link cost: delay, $ cost,
or congestion level
– other def’s possible
 Routing Algorithm classification
Global or decentralized Static or dynamic?
information?
Global:
Static:
z all routers have complete z routes change slowly
topology, link cost info over time
z “link state” algorithms
Dynamic:
Decentralized:
z router knows physically- z routes change more
connected neighbors, link quickly
costs to neighbors
– periodic update
z iterative process of
computation, exchange of – in response to link
info with neighbors cost changes
z “distance vector”
algorithms
 A Link-State Routing Algorithm
Dijkstra’s algorithm Notation:
z net topology, link costs z c(i,j): link cost from node i
known to all nodes to j. cost infinite if not
– accomplished via “link direct neighbors
state broadcast”
z D(v): current value of cost
– all nodes have same of path from source to
info dest. V
z computes least cost paths
from one node (‘source”) z p(v): predecessor node
to all other nodes along path from source to
v, that is next v
– gives routing table for
that node z N: set of nodes whose
z iterative: after k iterations, least cost path definitively
know least cost path to k known
dest.’s
 Dijsktra’s Algorithm
1 Initialization:
2 N = {A}
3 for all nodes v
4 if v adjacent to A
5 then D(v) = c(A,v)
6 else D(v) = infty
7
8 Loop
9 find w not in N such that D(w) is a minimum
10 add w to N
11 update D(v) for all v adjacent to w and not in N:
12 D(v) = min( D(v), D(w) + c(w,v) )
13 /* new cost to v is either old cost to v or known
14 shortest path cost to w plus cost from w to v */
15 until all nodes in N
 Dijkstra’s algorithm: example
Step start N D(B),p(B) D(C),p(C) D(D),p(D) D(E),p(E) D(F),p(F)
0 A 2,A 5,A 1,A infinity infinity
1 AD 2,A 4,D 2,D infinity
2 ADE 2,A 3,E 4,E
3 ADEB 3,E 4,E
4 ADEBC 4,E
5 ADEBCF

5
3
B C 5
2
A 2 1 F
3
1 2
D E
1
 Dijkstra’s algorithm, discussion
Algorithm computational complexity: n nodes
z each iteration: need to check all nodes, w, not in N
z n*(n+1)/2 comparisons: O(n2)
z more efficient implementations possible:
– O(nlogn): Use a heap (sorted) to maintain interim table
Oscillations possible:
z e.g., link cost = amount of carried traffic

1 A A A A
1+e 2+e 0 0 2+e 2+e 0
D 0 0 B D 1+e 1 B D B D 1+e 1 B
0 0
0 e 0 0 1 1+e 0 e
1
C C C C
1
e
… recompute … recompute … recompute
initially
routing
 Link State: Reliable Flooding
z Link State routers exchange information using
Link State Packets (LSP).
z LSP contains
– id of the node that created the LSP
– cost of the link to each directly connected neighbor
– sequence number (SEQNO)
– time-to-live (TTL) for this packet
z Reliable flooding
– store most recent LSP from each node
– forward LSP to all nodes but one that sent it
– generate new LSP periodically
• increment SEQNO
– start SEQNO at 0 when reboot
– decrement TTL of each stored LSP
• discard when TTL=0
Distance Vector Routing Algorithm
iterative:
z continues until no Distance Table data structure
nodes exchange info. z each node has its own
z self-terminating: no z row for each possible
“signal” to stop destination
asynchronous: z column for each directly-
z nodes need not attached neighbor to node
exchange info/iterate
in lock step!
distributed:
z each node
communicates only
with directly-attached
neighbors
 Distance Table: example

B 1 C E
cost to destination via
7 D () A B D
A 8 2
1 A 1 14 5
E D
2
B 7 8 5

destination
E D
D (C,D) = c(E,D) + minw {D (C,w)}
= 2+2 = 4 C 6 9 4
E D
D (A,D) = c(E,D) + min {D (A,w)}
w D 4 11 2
= 2+3 = 5 loop!
E B
D (A,B) = c(E,B) + minw{D (A,w)}
= 8+6 = 14
loop!
Distance table gives routing table
cost to destination via
E Outgoing link
D () A B D to use, cost

A 1 14 5 A A,1

B 7 8 5
destination

B D,5

destination
C 6 9 4 C D,4

D 4 11 2 D D,4

Distance table Routing table

Distance Vector Routing: overview
Iterative, asynchronous: Each node:
each local iteration caused
by:
z local link cost change wait for (change in local link
z message from neighbor: cost of msg from neighbor)
its least cost path change
from neighbor
Distributed:
recompute distance table
z each node notifies
neighbors only when its
least cost path to any
destination changes if least cost path to any dest
– neighbors then notify has changed, notify
their neighbors if neighbors
necessary
Distance Vector: link cost changes
Link cost changes:
1
z node detects local link cost change Y
4 1
z updates distance table (line 15)
X Z
z if cost change in least cost path, 50
notify neighbors (lines 23,24)

“good algorithm
news terminates

travels
fast”
Distance Vector: link cost changes
Link cost changes:
60
z good news travels fast Y
z bad news travels slow - 4 1
“count to infinity” X Z
50
problem!

algorithm
continues
on!
Distance Vector: poisoned reverse
If Z routes through Y to get to X : 60
Y
z Z tells Y its (Z’s) distance to X is 4 1
infinite (so Y won’t route to X via Z) X Z
50
z Does not work on larger loops

algorithm
terminates
Comparison of LS and DV algorithms
Message complexity Robustness: what happens if
z LS: with n nodes, with an router malfunctions?
average of l links/node, each LS:
node sends O(nl). Total – node can advertise
messages O(n2l) incorrect link cost
z DV: exchange between – each node computes only
its own table
neighbors only
DV:
– convergence time varies
– DV node can advertise
– may be routing loops incorrect path cost
– count-to-infinity problem – each node’s table used by
others
• error propagate thru
network
 Hierarchical Routing
Our routing study thus far -idealization
z all routers identical
z network “flat”
… not true in practice

scale: with 50 million administrative autonomy

destinations: z internet = network of
networks
z can’t store all dest’s in
routing tables! z each network admin may
z routing table exchange want to control routing in its
would swamp links! own network
 Hierarchical Routing
z aggregate routers into gateway routers
regions, “autonomous z special routers in AS
systems” (AS) z run intra-AS routing
z routers in same AS protocol with all other
routers in AS
run same routing
z also responsible for
protocol routing to destinations
– “intra-AS” routing outside AS
protocol
– run inter-AS routing
– routers in different AS protocol with other
can run different intra- gateway routers
AS routing protocol
Why different Intra- and Inter-AS routing ?

Policy:
z Inter-AS: admin wants control over how its traffic is
routed and who routes through its net.
z Intra-AS: single admin, so no policy decisions
needed
Scale:
z hierarchical routing saves table size, reduced update
traffic
Performance:
z Intra-AS: can focus on performance
z Inter-AS: policy may dominate over performance
 Intra-AS and Inter-AS routing
C.b Gateways:
B.a
•perform inter-AS
A.a routing amongst
b A.c c themselves
a C a
b •perform intra-AS
a B
routers with other
d c routers in their
A b
AS

network layer
inter-AS, intra-AS link layer
routing in
gateway A.c physical layer
Intra-AS and Inter-AS routing

Inter-AS
C.b routing
between B.a
A.a A and B Host
b A.c c h2
a C a
b
a B
Host d c Intra-AS routing
h1 b
A within AS B
Intra-AS routing
within AS A
 Routing in the Internet
z The Global Internet consists of Autonomous
Systems (AS) interconnected with each
other:
– Stub AS: small corporation
– Multihomed AS: large corporation (no transit)
– Transit AS: provider

z Two-level routing:
– Intra-AS: administrator is responsible for choice
– Inter-AS: unique standard
 Internet AS Hierarchy
Intra-AS border (exterior gateway) routers

Inter-AS interior (gateway) routers

 Intra-AS Routing

z Also known as Interior Gateway Protocols

(IGP)
z Most common IGPs:

– RIP: Routing Information Protocol

– OSPF: Open Shortest Path First

– IGRP: Interior Gateway Routing

Protocol (Cisco proprietary.)
RIP ( Routing Information Protocol)

z Distance vector algorithm

z Included in BSD-UNIX Distribution in 1982
z Distance metric: # of hops (max = 15 hops)
– Can you guess why?

z Distance vectors: exchanged every 30 sec

via Response Message (also called
advertisement)
z Each advertisement: routes for up to 25
destination nets
RIP (Routing Information Protocol)
z
w x y
A D B

C
Destination Network Next Router Num. of hops to dest.
w A 2
y B 2
z B 7
x -- 1
…. …. ....
Routing table in D
RIP: Link Failure and Recovery
If no advertisement heard after 180 sec -->
neighbor/link declared dead
– routes via neighbor invalidated
– new advertisements sent to neighbors
– neighbors in turn send out new
advertisements (if tables changed)
– link failure info quickly propagates to
entire net
– poison reverse used to prevent ping-pong
loops (infinite distance = 16 hops)
 RIP Table processing

z RIP routing tables managed by application-

level process called routed (daemon)
z advertisements sent in UDP packets,
periodically repeated
 RIP Table example (continued)
Router: giroflee.eurocom.fr

Destination Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface

-------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ ---------
127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 26492 lo0
192.168.2. 192.168.2.5 U 2 13 fa0
193.55.114. 193.55.114.6 U 3 58503 le0
192.168.3. 192.168.3.5 U 2 25 qaa0
224.0.0.0 193.55.114.6 U 3 0 le0
default 193.55.114.129 UG 0 143454

z Three attached class C networks (LANs)

z Router only knows routes to attached LANs
z Default router used to “go up”
z Route multicast address: 224.0.0.0
z Loopback interface (for debugging)
OSPF (Open Shortest Path First)
z “open”: publicly available
z Uses Link State algorithm
– LS packet dissemination
– Topology map at each node
– Route computation using Dijkstra’s algorithm
z OSPF advertisement carries one entry per
neighbor router
z Advertisements disseminated to entire AS
(via flooding)
OSPF “advanced” features (not in RIP)

z Security: all OSPF messages authenticated

(to prevent malicious intrusion); TCP
connections used
z Multiple same-cost paths allowed (only one
path in RIP)
z For each link, multiple cost metrics for
different TOS (eg, satellite link cost set “low”
for best effort; high for real time)
z Integrated uni- and multicast support:
– Multicast OSPF (MOSPF) uses same topology
data base as OSPF
z Hierarchical OSPF in large domains.
Hierarchical OSPF
 Hierarchical OSPF
z Two-level hierarchy: local area, backbone.
– Link-state advertisements only in area
– each nodes has detailed area topology;
only know direction (shortest path) to nets
in other areas.
z Area border routers: “summarize” distances
to nets in own area, advertise to other Area
Border routers.
z Backbone routers: run OSPF routing limited to
backbone.
z Boundary routers: connect to other ASs.
IGRP (Interior Gateway Routing Protocol)

z CISCO proprietary; successor of RIP (mid 80s)

z Distance Vector, like RIP
– Hold time
– Split Horizon
– Poison Reverse
z several cost metrics (delay, bandwidth, reliability,
load etc)
z uses TCP to exchange routing updates
z EIGRP (Garcia-Luna): Loop-free routing via
Distributed Updating Algorithm. (DUAL) based on
diffused computation
– Uses a mix of link-state and distance vector
Inter-AS routing
Internet inter-AS routing: BGP

z BGP (Border Gateway Protocol): the de facto

standard
z Path Vector protocol:
– similar to Distance Vector protocol
– each Border Gateway broadcast to neighbors
(peers) entire path (I.e, sequence of ASs) to
destination
– E.g., Gateway X may send its path to dest. Z:

Path (X,Z) = X,Y1,Y2,Y3,…,Z

 Internet inter-AS routing: BGP
Suppose: gateway X send its path to peer
gateway W
z W may or may not select path offered by X
– cost, policy (don’t route via competitors
AS), loop prevention reasons.
z If W selects path advertised by X, then:
Path (W,Z) = w, Path (X,Z)
z Note: X can control incoming traffic by
controlling it route advertisements to peers:
– e.g., don’t want to route traffic to Z -> don’t
advertise any routes to Z
 Internet inter-AS routing: BGP
z BGP messages exchanged using TCP.
z BGP messages:
– OPEN: opens TCP connection to peer and
authenticates sender
– UPDATE: advertises new path (or
withdraws old)
– KEEPALIVE keeps connection alive in
absence of UPDATES; also ACKs OPEN
request
– NOTIFICATION: reports errors in previous
msg; also used to close connection
Other Routing Techniques

z Hot-Potato Routing a.k.a Deflection

Routing
– Use the first available link irrespective of
whether it leads to the destination or not.
z Cut Through routing
– Non-store and forward: Routes before entire
packet is received at the router.
– Outgoing link is reserved. What happens if a
fast links succeeds a slow link?
 Reading

z Recommended
– End-To-End Routing Behavior in the Internet,
V. Paxson, SIGCOMM 1996.
ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/routing.SIGCOMM.ps
.Z

– Persistent Route Oscillations in Inter-Domain

Routing, K. Varadhan, R. Govindan, D. Estrin,
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/ra/Publications/bgp_osc.ps.gz