Network Working Group                                         P. Francis
Internet-Draft                                                   MPI-SWS
Intended status: Informational                                     X. Xu
Expires: November 24, 2009                                        Huawei
                                                              H. Ballani
                                                              Cornell U.
                                                                  D. Jen
                                                               R. Raszuk
                                                                L. Zhang
                                                            May 23, 2009

                FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   publication of this document (
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.


   The continued growth in the Default Free Routing Table (DFRT)
   stresses the global routing system in a number of ways.  One of the
   most costly stresses is FIB size: ISPs often must upgrade router
   hardware simply because the FIB has run out of space, and router
   vendors must design routers that have adequate FIB.  FIB suppression
   is an approach to relieving stress on the FIB by NOT loading selected
   RIB entries into the FIB.  Virtual Aggregation (VA) allows ISPs to
   shrink the FIBs of any and all routers, easily by an order of
   magnitude with negligible increase in path length and load.  FIB
   suppression deployed autonomously by an ISP (cooperation between ISPs
   is not required), and can co-exist with legacy routers in the ISP.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Scope of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.4.  Temporary Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       1.4.1.  Document revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Overview of Virtual Aggregation (VA) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.1.  Mix of legacy and VA routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.2.  Summary of Tunnels and Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.  Specification of VA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.1.  Requirements for VA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.2.  VA Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.1.  Legacy Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.2.  Advertising and Handling Virtual Prefixes (VP) . . . . 13
       3.2.3.  Border VA Routers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       3.2.4.  Advertising and Handling Sub-Prefixes  . . . . . . . . 18
       3.2.5.  Suppressing FIB Sub-prefix Routes  . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.2.6.  Core-Edge Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.3.  Requirements Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       3.3.1.  Response to router failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       3.3.2.  Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       3.3.3.  Incremental and safe deploy and start-up . . . . . . . 22
       3.3.4.  VA security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     3.4.  New Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.1.  Properly Configured VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.2.  Mis-configured VA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

1.  Introduction

   ISPs today manage constant DFRT growth in a number of ways.  Most
   commonly, ISPs will upgrade their router hardware before DFRT growth
   outstrips the size of the FIB.  In cases where an ISP wants to
   continue to use routers whose FIBs are not large enough, it may
   deploy them at edge locations where a full DFRT is not needed, for
   instance at the customer interface.  Packets for which there is no
   route are defaulted to a "core" infrastructure that does contain the
   full DFRT.  While this helps, it cannot be used for all edge routers,
   for instance those that interface with other ISPs.  Alternatively,
   some lower-tier ISPs may simply ignore some routes, for instance
   /24's that fall within the aggregate of another route.

   FIB Suppression is an approach to shrinking FIB size that requires no
   changes to BGP, no changes to packet forwarding mechanisms in
   routers, and relatively minor changes to control mechanisms in
   routers and configuration of those mechanisms.  The core idea behind
   FIB suppression is to run BGP as normal, and in particular to not
   shrink the RIB, but rather to not load certain RIB entries into the
   FIB, for instance by not committing them to the Routing Table.  This
   approach minimizes changes to routers, and in particular is simpler
   than more general routing architectures that try to shrink both RIB
   and FIB.  With FIB suppression, there are no changes to BGP per se.
   The BGP decision process does not change.  The selected AS-path does
   not change, and except on rare occasion the exit router does not
   change.  ISPs can deploy FIB suppression autonomously and with no
   coordination with neighbor ASes.

   This document describes an approach to FIB suppression called
   "Virtual Aggregation" (VA).  VA operates by organizing the IP (v4 or
   v6) address space into Virtual Prefixes (VP), and using tunnels to
   aggregate the (regular) sub-prefixes within each VP.  The decrease in
   FIB size can be dramatic, easily 5x or 10x with only a slight path
   length and router load increase [nsdi09].  The VPs can be organized
   such that all routers in an ISP see FIB size decrease, or in such a
   way that "core" routers keep the full FIB, and "edge" routers have
   almost no FIB (i.e. by defining a VP of 0/0).

1.1.  Scope of this Document

   The scope of this document is limited to Intra-domain VA operation.
   In other words, the case where a single ISP autonomously operates VA
   internally without any coordination with neighboring ISPs.

   Note that this document assumes that the VA "domain" (i.e. the unit
   of autonomy) is the AS (that is, different ASes run VA independently
   and without coordination).  For the remainder of this document, the

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   terms ISP, AS, and domain are used interchangeably.

   This document applies equally to IPv4 and IPv6.

   VA may operate with a mix of upgraded routers and legacy routers.
   There are no topological restrictions placed on the mix of routers.
   In order to avoid loops between upgraded and legacy routers, however,
   legacy routers must be able to terminate tunnels.

   This document is agnostic about what type of tunnel may be used for
   VA, and does not specify a tunnel type per se.  Rather, it refers
   generically to tunnels and specifies the minimum set of requirements
   that a given tunnel type must satisfy.  Separate documents are used
   to specify the operation of VA for specific tunnel types.

1.2.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.3.  Terminology

   Aggregation Point Router (APR):  An Aggregation Point Router (APR) is
      a router that aggregates a Virtual Prefix (VP) by installing
      routes (into the FIB) for all of the sub-prefixes within the VP.
      APRs advertise the VP to other routers with BGP.  For each sub-
      prefix within the VP, APRs have a tunnel from themselves to the
      remote ASBR (Autonomous System Border Router) where packets for
      that prefix should be delivered.
   Install and Suppress:  The terms "install" and "suppress" are used to
      describe whether a RIB entry has been loaded or not loaded into
      the FIB (or, equivalently, the Routing Table).  In other words,
      the phrase "install a route" means "install a route into the FIB",
      and the phrase "suppress a route" means "do not install a route
      into the FIB".
   Legacy Router:  A router that does not run VA, and has no knowledge
      of VA.  Legacy routers, however, must be able to terminate
      tunnels.  (If a Legacy router cannot terminate tunnels, then any
      routes that are reached via that router must be installed in all
   non-APR Router:  In discussing VPs, it is often necessary to
      distinguish between routers that are APRs for that VP, and routers
      that are not APRs for that VP (but of course may be APRs for other
      VPs not under discussion).  In these cases, the term "APR" is
      taken to mean "a VA router that is an APR for the given VP", and
      the term "non-APR" is taken to mean "a VA router that is not an
      APR for the given VP".  The term non-APR router is not used to

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

      refer to legacy routers.
   Popular Prefix:  A popular prefix is a sub-prefix that is installed
      in a router in addition to the sub-prefixes it holds by virtue of
      being a Aggregation Point Router.  The popular prefix allows
      packets to follow the shortest path.  Note that different routers
      do not need to have the same set of popular prefixes.
   Routing Table:  The term Routing Table is defined here the same way
      as in Section 3.2 of [RFC4271]: "Routing information that the BGP
      speaker uses to forward packets (or to construct the forwarding
      table used for packet forwarding) is maintained in the Routing
      Table."  As such, FIB Suppression can be achieved by not
      installing a route into the Routing Table
   Routing Information Base (RIB):  The term RIB is used rather sloppily
      in this document to refer either to the loc-RIB (as used in
      [RFC4271]), or to the combined Adj-RIBs-In, the Loc-RIB, and the
   Sub-Prefix:  A regular (physically aggregatable) prefix.  These are
      equivalent to the prefixes that would normally comprise the DFRT
      in the absence of VA.  A VA router will contain a sub-prefix entry
      either because the sub-prefix falls within a virtual prefix for
      which the router is an APR, or because the sub-prefix is installed
      as a popular prefix.  Legacy routers hold the same sub-prefixes
      they hold today.
   Tunnel:  VA can use a variety of tunnel types: MPLS LSPs, IP-in-IP,
      GRE, L2TP, and so on.  This document does not describe how any
      given tunnel information is conveyed: that is left for companion
      documents.  This document uses the term tunnel to refer to any
      appropriate tunnel type.
   VA router:  A router that operates Virtual Aggregation according to
      this document.
   Virtual Prefix (VP):  A Virtual Prefix (VP) is a prefix used to
      aggregate its contained regular prefixes (sub-prefixes).  A VP is
      not physically aggregatable, and so it is aggregated at APRs
      through the use of tunnels.
   VP-List:  A list of defines VPs.  All routers must agree on the
      contents of this list (which is statically configured into every
      VA router).

1.4.  Temporary Sections

   This section contains temporary information, and will be removed in
   the final version.

1.4.1.  Document revisions

   This document was previously published as both
   draft-francis-idr-intra-va-01.txt and draft-francis-intra-va-01.txt.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009  Revisions from the 00 version (of

   Added additional authors (Jen, Raszuk, Zhang), to reflect primary
   contributors moving forwards.  In addition, a number of minor
   clarifications were made.  Revisions from the 01 version (of

   1.  Changed file name from draft-francis-idr-intra-va to
   2.  Restructured the document to make the edge suppression mode a
       specific sub-case of VA rather than a separate mode of operation.
       This includes modifying the title of the draft.
   3.  Removed MPLS tunneling details so that specific tunneling
       approaches can be described in separate documents.  Revisions from 00 version

   o  Changed intended document type from STD to BCP, as per advice from
      Dublin IDR meeting.
   o  Cleaned up the MPLS language, and specified that the full-address
      routes to remote ASBRs must be imported into OSPF (Section 3.2.3).
      As per Daniel Ginsburg's email
   o  Clarified that legacy routers must run MPLS.  As per Daniel
      Ginsburg's email
   o  Fixed LOCAL_PREF bug.  As per Daniel Ginsburg's email
   o  Removed the need for the extended communities attribute on VP
      routes, and added the requirement that all VA routers be
      statically configured with the complete list of VPs.  As per
      Daniel Ginsburg's emails and
      In addition, the procedure for adding, deleting, splitting, and
      merging VPs was added.  As part of this, the possibility of having
      overlapping VPs was added.
   o  Added the special case of a core-edge topology with default routes
      to the edge as suggested by Robert Raszuk in email
      Note that this altered the structure and even title of the
   o  Clarified that FIB suppression can be achieved by not loading
      entries into the Routing Table, as suggested by Rajiv Asati in

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

2.  Overview of Virtual Aggregation (VA)

   For descriptive simplicity, this section starts by describing VA
   assuming that there are no legacy routers in the domain.  Section 2.1
   overviews the additional functions required by VA routers to
   accommodate legacy routers.

   A key concept behind VA is to operate BGP as normal, and in
   particular to populate the RIB with the full DFRT, but to suppress
   many or most prefixes from being loaded into the FIB.  By populating
   the RIB as normal, we avoid any changes to BGP, and changes to router
   operation are relatively minor.  The basic idea behind VA is quite
   simple.  The address space is partitioned into large prefixes ---
   larger than any aggregatable prefix in use today.  These prefixes are
   called virtual prefixes (VP).  Different VPs do not need to be the
   same size.  They may be a mix of /6, /7, /8 (for IPv4), and so on.
   Indeed, an ISP can define a single /0 VP, and use it for a core/edge
   type of configuration (commonly seen today).  That is, the core
   routers would maintain full FIBs, and edge routers could maintain
   default routes to the core routers, and suppress as much of the FIB
   as they wish.  Each ISP can independently select the size of its VPs.

   VPs are not themselves topologically aggregatable.  VA makes the VPs
   aggregatable through the use of tunnels, as follows.  Associated with
   each VP are one or more "Aggregation Point Routers" (APR).  An APR
   (for a given VP) is a router that installs routes for all sub-
   prefixes (i.e. real physically aggregatable prefixes) within the VP.
   By "install routes" here, we mean:

   1.  The route for each of the sub-prefixes is loaded into the FIB,
   2.  there is a tunnel from the APR to the BGP NEXT_HOP for the route.

   The APR originates a BGP route to the VP.  This route is distributed
   within the domain, but not outside the domain.  With this structure
   in place, a packet transiting the ISP goes from the ingress router to
   the APR (possibly via a tunnel), and then from the APR to the BGP
   NEXT_HOP router via a tunnel.

   Normally the BGP NEXT_HOP is the remote ASBR.  In this case, even
   though the remote ASBR is the tunnel endpoint, the tunnel header is
   stripped by the local ASBR before the packet is delivered to the
   remote ASBR.  In other words, the remote ASBR sees a normal IP
   packet, and is completely unaware of the existence of VA in the
   neighboring ISP.  The exception to this is legacy local ASBR routers.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   In this case, the legacy router is the BGP NEXT_HOP, and packets are
   tunneled to the legacy router, which then uses a FIB lookup to
   deliver the packet to the appropriate remote ASBR.  This applies only
   to legacy routers that can convey tunnel parameters and detunnel

   Note that the AS-path is not effected at all by VA.  This means among
   other things that AS-level policies are not effected by VA.  The
   packet may not, however, follow the shortest path within the ISP
   (where shortest path is defined here as the path that would have been
   taken if VA were not operating), because the APR may not be on the
   shortest path between the ingress and egress routers.  When this
   happens, the packet experiences additional latency and creates extra
   load (by virtue of taking more hops than it otherwise would have).
   Note also that, with VA, a packet may occasionally take a different
   exit point than it otherwise would have.

   VA can avoid traversing the APR for selected routes by installing
   these routes in non-APR routers.  In other words, even if an ingress
   router is not an APR for a given sub-prefix, it may install that sub-
   prefix into its FIB.  Packets in this case are tunneled directly from
   the ingress to the BGP NEXT_HOP.  These extra routes are called
   "Popular Prefixes", and are typically installed for policy reasons
   (i.e. customer routes are always installed), or for sub-prefixes that
   carry a high volume of traffic (Section  Different routers
   may have different popular prefixes.  As such, an ISP may assign
   popular prefixes per router, per POP, or uniformly across the ISP.  A
   given router may have zero popular prefixes, or the majority of its
   FIB may consist of popular prefixes.  The effectiveness of popular
   prefixes to reduce traffic load relies on the fact that traffic
   volumes follow something like a power-law distribution: i.e. that 90%
   of traffic is destined to 10% of the destinations.  Internet traffic
   measurement studies over the years have consistently shown that
   traffic patterns follow this distribution, though there is no
   guarantee that they always will.

   Note that for routing to work properly, every packet must sooner or
   later reach a router that has installed a sub-prefix route that
   matches the packet.  This would obviously be the case for a given
   sub-prefix if every router has installed a route for that sub-prefix
   (which of course is the situation in the absence of VA).  If this is
   not the case, then there must be at least one Aggregation Point
   Router (APR) for the sub-prefix's virtual prefix (VP).  Ideally,
   every POP contains at least two APRs for every virtual prefix.  By
   having APRs in every POP, the latency imposed by routing to the APR
   is minimal (the extra hop is within the POP).  By having more than
   one APR, there is a redundant APR should one fail.  In practice it is
   often not possible to have an APR for every VP in every POP.  This is

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   because some POPs may have only one or a few routers, and therefore
   there may not have enough cumulative FIB space in the POP to hold
   every sub-prefix.  Note that any router ("edge", "core", etc.) may be
   an APR.

2.1.  Mix of legacy and VA routers

   It is important that an ISP be able to operate with a mix of "VA
   routers" (routers upgraded to operate VA as described in the
   document) and "legacy routers".  This allows ISPs to deploy VA in an
   incremental fashion and to continue to use routers that for whatever
   reason cannot be upgraded.  This document allows such a mix, and
   indeed places no topological restrictions on that mix.  It does,
   however, require that legacy routers (and VA routers for that matter)
   are able to forward already-tunneled packets, are able to serve as
   tunnel endpoints, and are able to participate in distribution of
   tunnel information required to establish themselves as tunnel
   endpoints.  (This is listed as Requirement R5 in the companion
   tunneling documents.)  Depending on the tunnel type, legacy routers
   may also be able to generate tunneled packets, though this is an
   optional requirement.  (This is listed as Requirement R4 in the
   companion tunneling documents.)  Legacy routers must use their own
   address as the BGP NEXT_HOP, and must FIB-install routes for which
   they are the BGP NEXT_HOP.

2.2.  Summary of Tunnels and Paths

   To summarize, the following tunnels are created:

   1.  From all VA routers to all BGP NEXT_HOP addresses (where the BGP
       NEXT_HOP address is either an APR, a legacy router, or the remote
       ASBR neighbor of a VA router).  Note that this is listed as
       Requirement R3 in the companion tunneling documents.
   2.  Optionally, from all legacy routers to all BGP NEXT_HOP
   There are a number of possible paths that packets may take through an
   ISP, summarized in the following diagram.  Here, "VA" is a VA router,
   "LR" is a legacy router, the symbol "==>" represents a tunneled
   packet (through zero or more routers), "-->" represents an untunneled
   packet, and "(pop)" represents stripping the tunnel header.  The
   symbol "::>" represents the portion of the path where although the
   tunnel is targeted to the receiving node, the outer header has been
   stripped.  (Note that the remote ASBR may actually be a legacy router
   or a VA router---it doesn't matter (and isn't known) to the ISP.)

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

           Ingress    Some       APR         (Local     Remote
           Router     Router     Router      ASBR)      ASBR
           -------    ------     ------      ------     --------
       1.    VA===================>VA=========>VA(pop)::::>LR

       2.    VA===================>VA=========>LR--------->LR

       3.    VA===============================>VA(pop)::::>LR

       4.    VA===============================>LR--------->LR

       (The following two exist in the case where legacy routers
        can initiate tunneled packets.)

       5.    LR===============================>VA(pop)::::>LR

       6.    LR===============================>LR--------->LR

       (The following two exist in the case where legacy routers
        cannot initiate tunneled packets.)

       7.    LR------->VA (remaining paths as in 1 to 4 above)

       8.    LR------->LR--------------------->LR--------->LR

   The first and second paths represent the case where the ingress
   router does not have a popular prefix for the destination, and must
   tunnel the packet to an APR.  The third and fourth paths represent
   the case where the ingress router does have a popular prefix for the
   destination, and so tunnels the packet directly to the egress.  The
   fifth and sixth paths are similar, but where the ingress is a legacy
   router that can initiate tunneled packets, and effectively has the
   popular prefix by virtue of holding the entire DFRT.  (Note that some
   ISPs have only partial RIBs in their customer-facing edge routers,
   and default route to a router that holds the full DFRT.  This case is
   not shown here.)  Finally, paths 7 and 8 represent the case where
   legacy routers cannot initiate a tunneled packet.

   VA prevents the routing loops that might otherwise occur when VA
   routers and legacy routers are mixed.  The trick is avoiding the case
   where a legacy router is forwarding packets towards the BGP NEXT_HOP,
   while a VA router is forwarding packets towards the APR, with each
   router thinking that the other is on the shortest path to their
   respective targets.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   In the first four types of path, the loop is avoided because tunnels
   are used all the way to the egress.  As a result, there is never an
   opportunity for a legacy router to try to route based on the
   destination address unless the legacy router is the egress, in which
   case it forwards the packet to the remote ASBR.

   In the 5th and 6th cases, the ingress is a legacy router, but this
   router can initiate tunnels and has the full FIB, and so simply
   tunnels the packet to the egress router.

   In the 7th and 8th cases, the legacy ingress cannot initiate tunnels,
   and so forwards the packet hop-by-hop towards the BGP NEXT_HOP.  The
   packet will work its way towards the egress router, and will either
   progress through a series of legacy routers (in which case the IGP
   prevents loops), or it will eventually reach a VA router, after which
   it will take tunnels as in the 1st and 2nd cases.

3.  Specification of VA

   This section describes in detail how to operate VA.  It starts with a
   brief discussion of requirements, followed by a specification of
   router support for VA.

3.1.  Requirements for VA

   While the core requirement is of course to be able to manage FIB
   size, this must be done in a way that:
   o  is robust to router failure,
   o  allows for traffic engineering,
   o  allows for existing inter-domain routing policies,
   o  operates in a predictable manner and is therefore possible to
      test, debug, and reason about performance (i.e. establish SLAs),
   o  can be safely installed, tested, and started up,
   o  Can be configured and reconfigured without service interruption,
   o  can be incrementally deployed, and in particular can be operated
      in an AS with a mix of VA-capable and legacy routers,
   o  accommodates existing security mechanisms such as ingress
      filtering and DoS defense,
   o  does not introduce significant new security vulnerabilities.
   In short, operation of VA must not significantly affect the way ISPs
   operate their networks today.  Section 3.3 discusses the extent to
   which these requirements are met by the design presented in
   Section 3.2.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

3.2.  VA Operation

   In this section, the detailed operation of VA is specified.

3.2.1.  Legacy Routers

   VA can operate with a mix of VA and legacy routers.  To avoid the
   types of loops described in Section 2.2, however, legacy routers MUST
   satisfy the following requirements:

   1.  When forwarding externally-received routes over iBGP, the BGP
       NEXT_HOP attribute MUST be set to the legacy router itself.
   2.  Legacy routers MUST be able to detunnel packets addressed to
       themselves at the BGP NEXT_HOP address.  They MUST also be able
       to convey the tunnel information needed by other routers to
       initiate tunneled packets to them.  This is listed as
       "Requirement R1" in the companion tunneling documents.  If a
       legacy router cannot detunnel and convey tunnel parameters, then
       the AS cannot use VA.
   3.  Legacy routers MUST be able to forward all tunneled packets.
   4.  Every legacy router MUST hold its complete FIB.  (Note, of
       course, that this FIB does not necessarily need to contain the
       full DFRT.  This might be the case, for instance, if the router
       is an edge router that defaults to a core router.)

   As long as legacy routers participating in tunneling as described
   above there are no topological restrictions on the legacy routers.
   They may be freely mixed with VA routers without the possibility of
   forming sustained loops (Section 2.2).

3.2.2.  Advertising and Handling Virtual Prefixes (VP)  Distinguishing VP's from Sub-prefixes

   VA routers must be able to distinguish VP's from sub-prefixes.  This
   is primarily in order to know which routes to install.  In
   particular, non-APR routers must know which prefixes are VPs before
   they receive routes for those VPs, for instance when they first boot
   up.  This is in order to avoid the situation where they unnecessarily
   start filling their FIB with routes that they ultimately don't need
   to install (Section 3.2.5).  This leads to the following requirement:

   It MUST be possible to statically configure the complete list of VP's
   into all VA routers.  This list is known as the VP-List.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009  Limitations on Virtual Prefixes

   From the point of view of best-match routing semantics, VPs are
   treated identically to any other prefix.  In other words, if the
   longest matching prefix is a VP, then the packet is routed towards
   the VP.  If a packet matching a VP reaches an Aggregation Point
   Router (APR) for that VP, and the APR does not have a better matching
   route, then the packet is discarded by the APR (just as a router that
   originates any prefix will discard a packet that does not have a
   better match).

   The overall semantics of VPs, however, are subtly different from
   those of real prefixes (well, maybe not so subtly).  Without VA, when
   a router originates a route for a (real) prefix, the expectation is
   that the addresses within the prefix are within the originating AS
   (or a customer of the AS).  For VPs, this is not the case.  APRs
   originate VPs whose sub-prefixes exist in different ASes.  Because of
   this, it is important that VPs not be advertised across AS

   It is up to individual domains to define their own VPs.  VPs MUST be
   "larger" (span a larger address space) than any real sub-prefix.  If
   a VP is smaller than a real prefix, then packets that match the real
   prefix will nevertheless be routed to an APR owning the VP, at which
   point the packet will be dropped if it does not match a sub-prefix
   within the VP (Section 5).

   (Note that, in principle there are cases where a VP could be smaller
   than a real prefix.  This is where the egress router to the real
   prefix is a VA router.  In this case, the APR could theoretically
   tunnel the packet to the appropriate remote ASBR, which would then
   forward the packet correctly.  On the other hand, if the egress
   router is a legacy router, then the APR could not tunnel matching
   packets to the egress.  This is because the egress would view the VP
   as a better match, and would loop the packet back to the APR.  For
   this reason we require that VPs be larger than any real prefixes, and
   that APR's never install prefixes larger than a VP in their FIBs.)

   It is valid for a VP to be a subset of another VP.  For example, 20/7
   and 20/8 can both be VPs.  In fact, this capability is necessary for
   "splitting" a VP without temporarily the FIB size in any router.
   (Section  Aggregation Point Routers (APR)

   Any router may be configured as an Aggregation Point Router (APR) for
   one or more Virtual Prefixes (VP).  For each VP for which a router is
   an APR, the router does the following:

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   1.  The APR MUST originate a BGP route to the VP [RFC4271].  In this
       route, the NLRI are all of the VPs for which the router is an
       APR.  This is true even for VPs that are a subset of another VP.
       The ORIGIN is set to INCOMPLETE (value 2), the AS number of the
       APR's AS is used in the AS_PATH, and the BGP NEXT_HOP is set to
       the address of the APR.  The ATOMIC_AGGREGATE and AGGREGATOR
       attributes are not included.
   2.  The APR MUST attach a NO_EXPORT Communities Attribute [RFC1997]
       to the route.
   3.  The APR MUST be able to detunnel packets addressed to itself at
       its BGP NEXT_HOP address.  It MUST also be able to convey the
       tunnel information needed by other routers to initiate tunneled
       packets to them (Requirement R1).
   4.  If a packet is received at the APR whose best match is the VP
       (i.e. it matches the VP but not any sub-prefixes within the VP),
       then the packet MUST be discarded (see Section  This
       can be accomplished by never installing a prefix larger than the
       VP into the FIB, or by installing the VP as a route to \dev\null.  Selecting APRs

   An ISP is free to select APRs however it chooses.  The details of
   this are outside the scope of this document.  Nevertheless, a few
   comments are made here.  In general, APRs should be selected such
   that the distance to the nearest APR for any VP is small---ideally
   within the same POP.  Depending on the number of routers in a POP,
   and the sizes of the FIBs in the routers relative to the DFRT size,
   it may not be possible for all VPs to be represented in a given POP.
   In addition, there should be multiple APRs for each VP, again ideally
   in each POP, so that the failure of one does not unduly disrupt

   APRs may be (and probably should be) statically assigned.  They may
   also, however, be dynamically assigned, for instance in response to
   APR failure.  For instance, each router may be assigned as a backup
   APR for some other APR.  If the other APR crashes (as indicated by
   the withdrawal of its routes to its VPs), the backup APR can install
   the appropriate sub-prefixes and advertise the VP as specified above.
   Note that doing so may require it to first remove some popular
   prefixes from its FIB to make room.

   Note that, although VPs MUST be larger than real prefixes, there is
   intentionally no mechanism designed to automatically insure that this
   is the case.  Such a mechanisms would be dangerous.  For instance, if
   an ISP somewhere advertised a very large prefix (a /4, say), then
   this would cause APRs to throw out all VPs that are smaller than
   this.  For this reason, VPs must be set through static configuration

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009  Non-APR Routers

   A non-APR router MUST install at least the following routes:

   1.  Routes to VPs (identifiable using the VP-List).
   2.  Routes to the largest of any prefixes that contain a given VP.
       (Note that although this is not supposed to happen, if it does
       the non-APR should install it, with the effect that any addresses
       in the prefix not covered by VPs will be routed outside the
   3.  Routes to all prefixes that contain an address that is in part of
       the address space for which no VP is defined (i.e. as is done
       today without VA).

   If the non-APR has a tunnel to the BGP NEXT_HOP of any such route, it
   MUST use the tunnel to forward packets to the BGP NEXT_HOP.

   When an APR fails, routers MUST select another APR to send packets to
   (if there is one).  This happens, however, through normal internal
   BGP convergence mechanisms.  Note that it is strongly recommended
   that routers keep at least two VP routes in their RIB at all times.
   The main reason is that if the currently used VP route is withdrawn,
   the second VP route can be immediately installed, and the issue of
   whether to temporarily install sub-prefixes in the FIB is avoided
   (Section 3.2.5).  Another reason is that the IGP can be used to even
   more quickly detect that the APR has crashed, again allowing the
   second VP route to be immediately installed.  Adding and deleting VP's

   An ISP may from time to time wish to reconfigure its VP-List.  There
   are a number of reasons for this.  For instance, early in its
   deployment an ISP may configure one or a small number of VPs in order
   to test VA.  As the ISP gets more confident with VA, it may increase
   the number of VPs.  Or, an ISP may start with a small number of large
   VPs (i.e. /4's or even one /0), and over time move to more smaller
   VPs in order to save even more FIB.  In this case, the ISP will need
   to "split" a VP.  Finally, since the address space is not uniformly
   populated with prefixes, the ISP may want to change the size of VPs
   in order to balance FIB size across routers.  This can involve both
   splitting and merging VPs.  Of course, an ISP MUST be able to modify
   its VP-List without 1) interrupting service to any destinations, or
   2) temporarily increasing the size of any FIB (i.e. where the FIB
   size during the change is no bigger than its size either before or
   after the change).

   Adding a VP is straightforward.  The first step is to configure the
   APRs for the VP.  This causes the APRs to originate routes for the

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   VP.  Non-APR routers will install this route according to the rules
   in Section even though they do not yet recognize that the
   prefix is a VP.  Subsequently the VP is added to the VP-List of non-
   APR routers.  The Non-APR routers can then start suppressing the sub-
   prefixes with no loss of service.

   To delete a VP, the process is reversed.  First, the VP is removed
   from the VP-Lists of non-APRs.  This causes the non-APRs to install
   the sub-prefixes.  After all sub-prefixes have been installed, the VP
   may be removed from the APRs.

   In many cases, it is desirable to split a VP.  For instance, consider
   the case where two routers, Ra and Rb, are APRs for the same prefix.
   It would be possible to shrink the FIB in both routers by splitting
   the VP into two VPs (i.e. split one /6 into two /7's), and assigning
   each router to one of the VPs.  While this could in theory be done by
   first deleting the larger VP, and then adding the smaller VPs, doing
   so would temporarily increase the FIB size in non-APRs, which may not
   have adequate space for such an increase.  For this reason, we allow
   overlapping VPs.

   To split a VP, first the two smaller VPs are added to the VP-Lists of
   all non-APR routers (in addition to the larger superset VP).  Next,
   the smaller VPs are added to the selected APRs (which may or may not
   be APRs for the larger VP).  Because the smaller VPs are a better
   match than the larger VP, this will cause the non-APR routers to
   forward packets to the APRs for the smaller VPs.  Next, the larger VP
   can be removed from the VP-Lists of all non-APR routers.  Finally,
   the larger VP can be removed from its APRs.

   To merge two VPs, the new larger VP is configured in all non-APRs.
   This has no effect on FIB size or APR selection, since the smaller
   VPs are better matches.  Next the larger VP is configured in its
   selected APRs.  Next the smaller VPs are deleted from all non-APRs.
   Finally, the smaller VPs are deleted from their corresponding APRs.

3.2.3.  Border VA Routers

   VA routers that are border routers MUST do the following: When
   forwarding externally-received routes over iBGP, the BGP NEXT_HOP
   attribute MUST be set to the remote ASBR.  They MUST establish
   tunnels that have the following properties (Requirement R2 in
   companion documents):

   1.  The tunnel target must be the remote ASBR BGP NEXT_HOP address.
       In other words, the target address used by other routers in the
       domain for tunneling packets is the remote ASBR address.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   2.  The border router must detunnel the packet before forwarding the
       packet to the remote ASBR.  In other words, the remote ASBR
       receives a normal untunneled packet identical to the packet it
       would receive without VA.
   3.  The border router must be able to forward the packet without a
       FIB lookup.  In other words, the tunnel information itself
       contains all the information needed by the border router to know
       which remote ASBR should receive the packet.

   Note that there are a number of ways the above tunnel can be created,
   as documented separately.  For instance, the tag on an MPLS LSP could
   identify the remote ASBR, and the border router could use what is
   effectively penultimate hop popping to deliver the packet.  Or, GRE
   could be used whereby the outer IP header addresses the border
   router, and the GRE key value identifies the remote ASBR.

3.2.4.  Advertising and Handling Sub-Prefixes

   Sub-prefixes are advertised and handled by BGP as normal.  VA does
   not effect this behavior.  The only difference in the handling of
   sub-prefixes is that they might not be installed in the FIB, as
   described in Section 3.2.5.

   In those cases where the route is installed, packets forwarded to
   prefixes external to the AS MUST be transmitted via the tunnel
   established as described in Section 3.2.3.

3.2.5.  Suppressing FIB Sub-prefix Routes

   Any route not for a known VP (i.e. not in the VP-List) is taken to be
   a sub-prefix.  The following rules are used to determine if a sub-
   prefix route can be suppressed.

   1.  A VA router must never FIB-install a sub-prefix route for which
       there is no tunnel to the BGP NEXT_HOP address.  This is to
       prevent a loop whereby the APR forwards the packet hop-by-hop
       towards the next hop, but a router on the path that has FIB-
       suppressed the sub-prefix forwards it back to the APR.  If there
       is an alternate route to the sub-prefix for which there is a
       tunnel, then that route should be selected, even if it is less
       attractive according to the normal BGP best path selection
   2.  If the router is an APR, a route for every sub-prefix within the
       VP MUST be FIB-installed (subject to the above limitation that
       there be a tunnel).
   3.  If a non-APR router has a sub-prefix route that does not fall
       within any VP (as determined by the VP-List), then the route must
       be installed.  This may occur because the ISP hasn't defined a VP

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

       covering that prefix, for instance during an incremental
       deployment buildup.
   4.  If a non-APR router does not have a route for a known VP, then it
       MAY or MAY NOT install sub-prefixes within that VP.  Whether or
       not it does is up to the vendor and the network operator.  One
       approach is to never install such sub-prefixes, on the assumption
       that the network operator will engineer his network so that this
       rarely if ever happens.
   5.  Another approach is to have routers install such sub-prefixes,
       but taking care not to do so if the missing VP route is a
       transient condition.  For instance, if the router is booting up,
       and simply has not yet received all of its routes, then it can
       reasonably expect to receive a VP route soon and so SHOULD NOT
       install the sub-prefixes.  On the other hand, if a continuously
       operating router had only a single remaining route for the VP,
       and that route is withdrawn, then the router might not expect to
       receive a replacement VP route soon and so SHOULD install the
       sub-prefixes.  Obviously a router can't predict the future with
       certainty, so the following algorithm might be a useful way to
       manage whether or not to install sub-prefixes for a non-existing
       VP route:
       *  Define a timer MISSING_VP_TIMER, set for a relatively short
          time (say 10 seconds or so).
       *  Start the timer when either: 1) the last VP route is
          withdrawn, or 2) there are initially neither VP routes nor
          sub-prefix routes, and the first sub-prefix route is received.
       *  When the timer expires, install sub-prefix routes.  Note,
          however, that optional routes may first need to be removed
          from the FIB to make room for the new sub-prefix routes.  If
          even after removing optional routes there is no room in the
          FIB for sub-prefix routes, then they should remain suppressed.
          In other words, sub-prefix entries required by virtue of being
          an APR take priority over sub-prefix entries required by
          virtue of not having a VP route.
   6.  All other sub-prefix routes MAY be suppressed.  Such "optional"
       sub-prefixes that are nevertheless installed are referred to as
       popular prefixes.  Selecting Popular Prefixes

   Individual routers may independently choose which sub-prefixes are
   popular prefixes.  There is no need for different routers to install
   the same sub-prefixes.  There is therefore significant leeway as to
   how routers select popular prefixes.  As a general rule, routers
   should fill the FIB as much as possible, because the cost of doing so
   is relatively small, and more FIB entries leads to fewer packets
   taking a longer path.  Broadly speaking, an ISP may choose to fill
   the FIB by making routers APR's for as many VP's as possible, or by

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   assigning relatively few APR's and rather filling the FIB with
   popular prefixes.  Several basic approaches to selecting popular
   prefixes are outlined here.  Router vendors are free to implement
   whatever approaches they want.

   1.  Policy-based: The simplest approach for network administrators is
       to have broad policies that routers use to determine which sub-
       prefixes are designated as popular.  An obvious policy would be a
       "customer routes" policy, whereby all customer routes are
       installed (as identified for instance by appropriate community
       attribute tags).  Another policy would be for a router to install
       prefixes originated by specific ASes.  For instance, two ISPs
       could mutually agree to install each other's originated prefixes.
       A third policy might be to install prefixes with the shortest AS-
   2.  Static list: Another approach would be to configure static lists
       of specific prefixes to install.  For instance, prefixes
       associated with an SLA might be configured.  Or, a list of
       prefixes for the most popular websites might be installed.
   3.  High-volume prefixes: By installing high-volume prefixes as
       popular prefixes, the latency and load associated with the longer
       path required by VA is minimized.  One approach would be for an
       ISP to measure its traffic volume over time (days or a few
       weeks), and statically configure high-volume prefixes as popular
       prefixes.  There is strong evidence that prefixes that are high-
       volume tend to remain high-volume over multi-day or multi-week
       timeframes (though not necessarily at short timeframes like
       minutes or seconds).  High-volume prefixes may also be installed
       dynamically.  In other words, a router measures its own traffic
       volumes, and installs and removes popular prefixes in response to
       short term traffic load.  The downside of this approach is that
       it complicates debugging network problems.  If packets are being
       dropped somewhere in the network, it is more difficult to find
       out where if the selected path can change dynamically.

3.2.6.  Core-Edge Operation

   A common style of router deployment in ISPs is the "core-edge"
   deployment, whereby there is a core of high-capacity routers
   surrounded by potentially lower-capacity "edge" routers that may not
   carry the whole DFRT, and which default route to a core router.  VA
   can support this style of configuration be effectively defining a
   single VP as 0/0, and by defining core routers to be APRs for 0/0.
   This results in core routers maintaining full FIBs, and edge routers
   having potentially extremely small FIBs.  The advantage of using VA
   to support core-edge topologies is that, with VA, any edge router,
   including those peering with other ISPs, can have a small FIB.  Today
   such routers must maintain the full DFRT in order to peer.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   Vendors may wish to facilitate configuration of a core-edge style of
   VA for its customers that already use a core-edge topology.  In other
   words, a vendor may wish to simplify the VA configuration task so
   that a customer merely needs to configure which of its routers are
   core and which are edge, and the appropriate VA configuration, i.e.
   the VP-List, tunnels, and popular prefixes, is automatically done
   "under the hood" so to speak.  Note that, under a core-edge
   configuration, it isn't strictly speaking necessary for core routers
   to advertise the 0/0 VP within BGP.  Rather, edge routers could rely
   on their default route to a core router.

3.3.  Requirements Discussion

   This section describes the extent to which VA satisfies the list of
   requirements given in Section 3.1.

3.3.1.  Response to router failure

   VA introduces a new failure mode in the form of Aggregation Point
   Router (APR) failure.  There are two basic approaches to protecting
   against APR failure, static APR redundancy, and dynamic APR
   assignment (see Section  In static APR redundancy, enough
   APRs are assigned for each Virtual Prefix (VP) so that if one goes
   down, there are others to absorb its load.  Failover to a static
   redundant APR is automatic with existing BGP mechanisms.  If an APR
   crashes, BGP will cause packets to be routed to the next nearest APR.
   Nevertheless, there are three concerns here: convergence time, load
   increase at the redundant APR, and latency increase for diverted

   Regarding convergence time, note that, while fast-reroute mechanisms
   apply to the rerouting of packets to a given APR or egress router,
   they don't apply to APR failure.  Convergence time was discussed in
   Section, which suggested that it is likely that BGP
   convergence times will be adequate, and if not the IGP mechanisms may
   be used.

   Regarding load increase, in general this is relatively small.  This
   is because substantial reductions in FIB size can be achieved with
   almost negligible increase in load.  For instance, [nsdi09] shows
   that a 5x reduction in FIB size yields a less than one percent
   increase in load overall.  Given this, depending on the configuration
   of redundant APRs, failure of one APR increases the load of its
   backups by only a few percent.  This is well within the variation
   seen in normal traffic loads.

   Regarding latency increase, some flows may see a significant increase
   in delay (and, specifically, an increase that puts it outside of its

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   SLA boundary).  Normally a redundant APR would be placed within the
   same POP, and so increased latency would be minimal (assuming that
   load is also quite small, and so there is no significant queuing
   delay).  It is not always possible, however, to have an APR for every
   VP within every POP, much less a redundant APR within every POP, and
   so sometimes failure of an APR will result in significant latency
   increases for a small fraction of traffic.

3.3.2.  Traffic Engineering

   VA complicates traffic engineering because the placement of APRs and
   selection of popular prefixes influences how packets flow.  (Though
   to repeat, increased load is in any event likely to be minimal, and
   so the effect on traffic engineering should not be great in any
   event.)  Since the majority of packets may be forwarded by popular
   prefixes (and therefore follow the shortest path), it is particularly
   important that popular prefixes be selected appropriately.  As
   discussed in Section, there are static and dynamic approaches
   to this. [nsdi09] shows that high-volume prefixes tend to stay high-
   volume for many days, and so a static strategy is probably adequate.
   VA can operate correctly using either RSVP-TE [RFC3209] or LDP to
   establish tunnels.

3.3.3.  Incremental and safe deploy and start-up

   It must be possible to install and configure VA in a safe and
   incremental fashion, as well as start it up when routers reboot.
   This document allows for a mixture of VA and legacy routers, allows a
   fraction or all of the address space to fall within virtual prefixes,
   and allows different routers to suppress different FIB entries
   (including none at all).  As a result, it is generally possible to
   deploy and test VA in an incremental fashion.

3.3.4.  VA security

   Regarding ingress filtering, because in VA the RIB is effectively
   unchanged, routers contain the same information they have today for
   installing ingress filters [RFC2827].  Presumably, installing an
   ingress filter in the FIB takes up some memory space.  Since ingress
   filtering is most effective at the "edge" of the network (i.e. at the
   customer interface), the number of FIB entries for ingress filtering
   should remain relatively small---equal to the number of prefixes
   owned by the customer.  Whether this is true in all cases remains for
   further study.

   Regarding DoS attacks, there are two issues that need to be
   considered.  First, does VA result in new types of DoS attacks?
   Second, does VA make it more difficult to deploy DoS defense systems.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   Regarding the first issue, one possibility is that an attacker
   targets a given router by flooding the network with traffic to
   prefixes that are not popular, and for which that router is an APR.
   This would cause a disproportionate amount of traffic to be forwarded
   to the APR(s).  While it is up to individual ISPs to decide if this
   attack is a concern, it does not strike the authors that this attack
   is likely to significantly worsen the DoS problem.

   Regarding DoS defense system deployment, more input about specific
   systems is needed.  It is the authors' understanding, however, that
   at least some of these systems use dynamically established Routing
   Table entries to divert victims' traffic into LSPs that carry the
   traffic to scrubbers.  The expectation is that this mechanism simply
   over-rides whatever route is in place (with or without VA), and so
   the operation of VA should not limit the deployment of these types of
   DoS defense systems.  Nevertheless, more study is needed here.

3.4.  New Configuration

   VA places new configuration requirements on ISP administrators.
   Namely, the administrator must:

   1.  Select VPs, and configure the VP-List into all VA routers.  As a
       general rule, having a larger number of relatively small prefixes
       gives administrators the most flexibility in terms of filling
       available FIB with sub-prefixes, and in terms of balancing load
       across routers.  Once an administrator has selected a VP-List, it
       is just as easy to configure routers with a large list as a small
       list.  We can expect network operator groups like NANOG to
       compile good VP-Lists that ISPs can then adopt.  A good list
       would be one where the number of VPs is relatively large, say 100
       or so (noting again that each VP must be smaller than a real
       prefix), and the number of sub-prefixes within each VP is roughly
       the same.
   2.  Select and configure APRs.  There are three primary
       considerations here.  First, there must be enough APRs to handle
       reasonable APR failure scenarios.  Second, APR assignment should
       not result in router overload.  Third, particularly long paths
       should be avoided.  Ideally there should be two APRs for each VP
       within each PoP, but this may not be possible for small PoPs.
       Failing this, there should be at least two APRs in each
       geographical region, so as to minimize path length increase.
       Routers should have the appropriate counters to allow
       administrators to know the volume of APR traffic each router is
       handling so as to adjust load by adding or removing APR

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   3.  Select and configure Popular Prefixes or Popular Prefix policies.
       There are two general goals here.  The first is to minimize load
       overall by minimizing the number of packets that take longer
       paths.  The second is to insure that specific selected prefixes
       don't have overly long paths.  These goals must be weighed
       against the administrative overhead of configuring potentially
       thousands of popular prefixes.  As one example a small ISP may
       wish to keep it simple by doing nothing more than indicating that
       customer routes should be installed.  In this case, the
       administrator could otherwise assign as many APRs as possible
       while leaving enough FIB space for customer routes.  As another
       example, a large ISP could build a management system that takes
       into consideration the traffic matrix, customer SLAs, robustness
       requirements, FIB sizes, topology, and router capacity, and
       periodically automatically computes APR and popular prefix

4.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations.

5.  Security Considerations

   We consider the security implications of VA under two scenarios, one
   where VA is configured and operated correctly, and one where it is
   mis-configured.  A cornerstone of VA operation is that the basic
   behavior of BGP doesn't change, especially inter-domain.  Among other
   things, this makes it easier to reason about security.

5.1.  Properly Configured VA

   If VA is configured and operated properly, then the external behavior
   of an AS does not change.  The same upstream ASes are selected, and
   the same prefixes and AS-paths are advertised.  Therefore, a properly
   configured VA domain has no security impact on other domains.

   This document discusses intra-domain security concerns in
   Section 3.3.4 which argues that any new security concerns appear to
   be relatively minor.

   If another ISP starts advertising a prefix that is larger than a
   given VP, this prefix will be ignored by APRs that have a VP that
   falls within the larger prefix (Section  As a result,
   packets that might otherwise have been routed to the new larger
   prefix will be dropped at the APRs.  Note that the trend in the
   Internet is towards large prefixes being broken up into smaller ones,

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   not the reverse.  Therefore, such a larger prefix is likely to be
   invalid.  If it is determined without a doubt that the larger prefix
   is valid, then the ISP will have to reconfigure its VPs.

5.2.  Mis-configured VA

   VA introduces the possibility that a VP is advertised outside of an
   AS.  This in fact should be a low probability event, but it is
   considered here none-the-less.

   If an AS leaks a large VP (i.e. larger than any real prefixes), then
   the impact is minimal.  Smaller prefixes will be preferred because of
   best-match semantics, and so the only impact is that packets that
   otherwise have no matching routes will be sent to the misbehaving AS
   and dropped there.  If an AS leaks a small VP (i.e. smaller than a
   real prefix), then packets to that AS will be hijacked by the
   misbehaving AS and dropped.  This can happen with or without VA, and
   so doesn't represent a new security problem per se.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of Xinyang Zhang
   and Jia Wang, who worked on CRIO (Core Router Integrated Overlay), an
   early inter-domain variant of FIB suppression, and the efforts of
   Hitesh Ballani and Tuan Cao, who worked on the configuration-only
   variant of VA that works with legacy routers.  We would also like to
   thank Scott Brim, Daniel Ginsburg, and Rajiv Asati for their helpful
   comments.  In particular, Daniel's comments significantly simplified
   the spec (eliminating the need for a new External Communities

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1997]  Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
              Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   [RFC3107]  Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
              BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [nsdi09]   Ballani, H., Francis, P., Cao, T., and J. Wang, "Making
              Routers Last Longer with ViAggre", ACM Usenix NSDI 2009 ht
              ballani/ballani.pdf, April 2009.

Authors' Addresses

   Paul Francis
   Max Planck Institute for Software Systems
   Kaiserslautern  67633

   Phone: +49 631 930 39600

   Xiaohu Xu
   Huawei Technologies
   No.3 Xinxi Rd., Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District
   Beijing, Beijing  100085

   Phone: +86 10 82836073

Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft               FIB Suppression                    May 2009

   Hitesh Ballani
   Cornell University
   4130 Upson Hall
   Ithaca, NY  14853

   Phone: +1 607 279 6780

   Dan Jen
   4805 Boelter Hall
   Los Angeles, CA  90095


   Robert Raszuk


   Lixia Zhang
   3713 Boelter Hall
   Los Angeles, CA  90095


Francis, et al.         Expires November 24, 2009              [Page 27]