BGP-The Exterior Gateway

Routing Protocol

Rakshitha K U
3rd Bsc
U05NS21S009
Definition of BGP:-
• BGP, or Border Gateway Protocol, is a specialized and crucial networking protocol
employed in the vast landscape of the Internet. As an exterior gateway protocol, BGP
facilitates the exchange of routing and reachability information between different
Autonomous Systems (ASes), which can be thought of as individual neighborhoods on the
Internet. BGP's primary role is to determine the most efficient and policy-compliant paths
for data transmission between these distinct ASes. Unlike interior gateway protocols
focused on within a single AS, BGP is designed to navigate the complex interconnections
and unique policies governing communication between diverse entities on the Internet. In
essence, it acts as the intelligent guide for data traffic as it travels between neighborhoods,
ensuring effective and policy-aware routing across the global network.
 Do not carry commercial traffic on the educational
1 network.

Never send traffic from the pentagon on route through

2
Routing Iraq.

constraints:-
3 Use TeliaSonera instead of Verizon because it is cheaper.
Typical policies involve
political security or economic
consideration. Few examples of
possible routing constraints are 4 Don’t use AT&T in Australia because performance is poor.

Traffic starting or ending at Apple should not transit

5 Google
• Routing policies govern how network traffic moves between Autonomous Systems (ASes). In a common
setup, a customer ISP pays another provider ISP for transit services, similar to a household subscribing to
Internet access. For this arrangement to function, the provider must inform the customer about routes to all
Internet destinations, enabling global packet transmission from the customer. Conversely, the customer only
informs the provider about routes to its network destinations, ensuring that the provider directs traffic solely
for those addresses. This reciprocal routing strategy streamlines and optimizes data exchange between the
customer and provider ISPs.
• Routing policy between four autonomous systems.
• In Fig, all of the other ASes buy transit service from AS1. This provides them with connectivity so they can
interact with any host on the Internet. However, they have to pay for this privilege. Suppose that AS2 and
AS3 exchange a lot of traffic. Given that their networks are connected already, if they want to, they can use
a different policy—they can send traffic directly to each other for free. This will reduce the amount of traffic
they must have AS1 deliver on their behalf, and hopefully it will reduce their bills. This policy is called
peering.

• To implement peering, two ASes send routing advertisements to each other for the addresses that reside in
their networks. Doing so makes it possible for AS2to send AS3 packets from A destined to B and vice versa.
However, note that peering is not transitive. In Fig. 5-67, AS3 and AS4 also peer with each other. This
peering allows traffic from C destined for B to be sent directly to AS4. What happens if C sends a packet to
A? AS3 is only advertising a route to B to AS4. It is not advertising a route to A. The consequence is that
traffic will not pass fromAS4 to AS3 to AS2, even though a physical path exists. This restriction is exactly
what AS3 wants. It peers with AS4 to exchange traffic, but does not want to carry traffic from AS4 to other
parts of the Internet since it is not being paid to so do. Instead, AS4 gets transit service from AS1. Thus, it is
AS1 who will carry the packet from C to A.
A, B, and C in this context have transit arrangements. For instance, A obtains Internet access
by purchasing it from AS2. A, representing either a single home computer or a company
network, doesn't need to utilize the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) since it's a stub network
connected to the broader Internet through a single link. The path for packets destined outside
its network is straightforward—over the link to AS2, established through a default route.

In contrast, certain company networks, embracing a technique known as multihoming, connect

to multiple ISPs for enhanced reliability. Multihoming allows the company to switch to an
alternative ISP if one path fails, improving network resilience. In such cases, the company
network typically employs an interdomain routing protocol like BGP to inform other ASes
about which addresses should be reached through each ISP link.
• BGP is a form of distance vector protocol, but it is quite unlike intradomain distance vector
protocols such as RIP. We have already seen that policy, instead of minimum distance, is used
to pick which routes to use. Another large difference is that instead of maintaining just the cost
of the route to each destination, each BGP router keeps track of the path used. This approach
is called a path vector protocol. The path consists of the next hop router (which may be on the
other side of the ISP, not adjacent) and the sequence of ASes, or AS path, that the route has
followed (given in reverse order). Finally, pairs of BGP routers communicate with each other
by establishing TCP connections. Operating this way provides reliable communication and
also hides all the details of the network being passed through.
• Carrying the complete path with the route makes it easy for the receiving router to detect and
break routing loops. The rule is that each router that sends a route outside of the AS prepends
its own AS number to the route. (This is why the list is in reverse order.) When a router
receives a route, it checks to see if its own AS number is already in the AS path. If it is, a loop
has been detected and the advertisement is discarded. However, and somewhat ironically, it
was realized in the late 1990s that despite this precaution BGP suffers from a version of the
count-to-infinity problem (Labovitz et al., 2001). There are no long-lived loops, but routes can
sometimes be slow to converge and have transient loops.
• Giving a list of ASes is a very coarse way to specify a path. An AS might be a small
company, or an international backbone network. There is no way of telling from the route.
BGP does not even try because different ASes may use different intra domain protocols whose
costs cannot be compared. Even if they could be compared, an AS may not want to reveal its
internal metrics. This is one of the ways that interdomain routing protocols differ from
intradomain protocols.
• When information about internet routes needs to be shared within an Internet Service
Provider (ISP), a special version of the routing protocol, called iBGP (internal BGP), is
often used. This is different from the regular BGP used for communication between
different ISPs. In simple terms, iBGP helps routers within the same ISP to know about all
the routes that other routers in the same ISP are aware of. This way, if one router in the ISP
learns about a certain way to reach a part of the internet, all the other routers in that ISP
also learn it. This ensures that internet traffic can find its way effectively within the ISP,
regardless of where it's coming from or going to outside the ISP.
• Hot potato routing is a network routing strategy where data is quickly handed off or
"thrown" to the nearest or most convenient connection point. In this context, the term "hot
potato" implies a sense of urgency to pass the data as soon as possible.
• In the context of internet routing, hot potato routing is often applied when deciding
the exit point for traffic leaving an Autonomous System (AS). Instead of holding onto
the data and determining the optimal exit point within the AS, hot potato routing
directs the data to the nearest external connection point. The idea is to minimize the
time the data spends within the network and swiftly hand it off to the next AS, even
if that means the data might not be taking the shortest or most optimal path.
• This approach is particularly relevant in situations where an AS has multiple exit
points to different ISPs (Internet Service Providers). Hot potato routing helps in
quickly passing the data to the external network, allowing the next AS to handle its
routing decisions. It contrasts with "cold potato routing," where the originating AS
makes routing decisions deeper into the network before passing the data on.
THANK YOU