Internet Engineering Task Force S. Tsuchiya, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational S. Kawamura
Expires: September 15, 2011 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
R. Bush
C. Pelsser
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
March 14, 2011
Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-01
Abstract
BGP Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] is a mechanism that targets route
stability. It penalyzes routes that flap with the aim of reducing
CPU load on the routers.
But it has side-effects. Thus, in 2006, RIPE recommended not to use
Route Flap Damping (see RIPE-378).
Now, some researchers propose to turn RFD, with less aggressive
parameters, back on [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable].
This document describes results of a survey conducted amoung service
provider on their use of BGP Route Flap Damping.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Survey Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Survey's target and period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. For Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Q1.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Q2.If you select No on Q1,why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Q3.If you select Yes on Q1,what parameter do you use? . . . 5
3.3.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Q4.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap
Damping Considered Usable?'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Q5.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do
you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? . . . . 6
3.5.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Q6.If you have any comments, please fill this box. . . . . 6
3.6.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Summary of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
1. Survey Purpose
RIPE published some recommendations such as RIPE-178 [RIPE-178],RIPE-
210 [RIPE-210],RIPE-229 [RIPE-229] and RIPE-378 [RIPE-378].
The purpose of this survey is to understand the current usage and
requirements of Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] among service providers.
2. Survey's target and period
2.1. For Japan
Target: Japan Network Operator Group janog@janog.gr.jp
Period: Jan 28,2011 - Feb 12,2011
2.2. All
Target: All operators that will answer the survey following the
publication of this document.
Period:Mar 7,2011 - May 25,2011
Please open the following url and answer the questionaire.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey
3. Survey Results
3.1. Q1.Do you use Route Flap Damping ?
3.1.1. Japan
Yes: 5
No: 13
1 respondant skipped this question
3.1.2. All
No results yet!
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
3.2. Q2.If you select No on Q1,why?
3.2.1. Japan
Do not have the need: 3
Did not know about the feature: 2
No benefits expected: 3
Customers would complain:1
Because I read RIPE-378 [RIPE-378]:2
Other: 3
3.2.2. All
No results yet!
3.3. Q3.If you select Yes on Q1,what parameter do you use?
3.3.1. Japan
Default parameters: 3
RIPE-178 [RIPE-178]: 0
RIPE-210 [RIPE-210]: 0
RIPE-229 [RIPE-229]: 0
Other: 3
1 person answered Q3, even if he selected "No" on Q1.
3.3.2. All
No results yet!
3.4. Q4.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping
Considered Usable?''
3.4.1. Japan
Yes: 12
No: 7
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
One person skipped Q1, but answered Q4.
3.4.2. All
No results yet!
3.5. Q5.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this
limitation to be relaxed to over 50K?
3.5.1. Japan
Yes: 10
No: 9
3.5.2. All
No results yet!
3.6. Q6.If you have any comments, please fill this box.
Free format
3.6.1. Japan
-Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped
sometimes.
-We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non-
damped route.
-From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us
that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and
ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?"
-We use damping pretty heavily
-I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router
has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD.
3.6.2. All
No results yet!
4. Summary of data
From the survey we see that there are many service providers with RFD
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
disabled. The reason varies among providers, but it is clear that
there are those who wish that RFD was made useful.
[draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] describes how to improve RFD with minor
changes to some parameters. From the comments in the survey, the
most significant fear of enabling RFD is its impact on customers.
5. Acknowledgements
We thank the 19 respondant to this survey.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route
Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable]
Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O.
Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable",
draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress), March 2011.
[RIPE-178]
Barber, T., Doran, S., Panigl, C., and J. Schmitz, ""RIPE
Routing-WG Recommendation for coor-dinated route-flap
damping parameters"", Feb 1998,
<ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-178.txt>.
[RIPE-210]
Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C., and J.
Schmitz, ""RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coordinated
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
route-flap damping parameters"", May 2000,
<ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-210.txt>.
[RIPE-229]
Panigl, C., Schmitz, J., Smith, P., and C. Vistoli, ""RIPE
Routing-WG Recommendations for Coordinated Route-flap
Damping Parameters"", Oct 2001,
<ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-229.txt>.
[RIPE-378]
Smith, P. and C. Panigl, ""RIPE Routing Working Group
Recommendations On Route-flap Damping"", May 2006,
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-378>.
[Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?]
Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Patel, K., and R. Bush, ""Route
Flap Damping Considered Useable"", Nov 2011, <http://
ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/222-101117.ripe-rfd.pdf>.
Appendix A. Additional Stuff
This becomes an Appendix.
Authors' Addresses
Shishio Tsuchiya (editor)
Cisco Systems
Shinjuku Mitsui Building, 2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku
Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 163-0409
Japan
Phone: +81 3 6434 6543
Email: shtsuchi@cisco.com
Seiichi Kawamura
NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
14-22, Shibaura 4-chome
Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558
JAPAN
Phone: +81 3 3798 6085
Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFD Depoyment Survey March 2011
Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
US
Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1
Email: randy@psg.com
Cristel Pelsser
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105
Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-kun 101-0051
JP
Phone: +81 3 5205 6464
Email: cristel@iij.ad.jp
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 9]