Interdomain Routing - Networking - Lecture Slides, Slides of Computer Networks

A lecture from Networking with following key points: Interdomain Routing, Autonomous System, Autonomous Systems, Scaling, Distance Vector, Scalablerouting, Ip Addresses, Original Internet Addresses, Business Relationships, Peer

Typology: Slides

2013/2014

Uploaded on 01/29/2014

sundar
sundar 🇮🇳

4.7

(9)

104 documents

1 / 64

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Interdomain Routing
docsity.com
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a
pf2b
pf2c
pf2d
pf2e
pf2f
pf30
pf31
pf32
pf33
pf34
pf35
pf36
pf37
pf38
pf39
pf3a
pf3b
pf3c
pf3d
pf3e
pf3f
pf40

Partial preview of the text

Download Interdomain Routing - Networking - Lecture Slides and more Slides Computer Networks in PDF only on Docsity!

Interdomain Routing

Internet Routing

  • So far, only considered routing within a domain

  • Many issues can be ignored in this setting because there is central administrative control over routers - Issues such as autonomy , privacy , policy
  • But the Internet is more than a single domain

Autonomous Systems (AS)

  • AS is a network under a single administrative control
    • currently over 30,000 ASes
    • Think AT&T, France Telecom, UCB, IBM, etc.
  • ASes are sometimes called “domains”.
    • Hence, “interdomain routing”
  • Each AS is assigned a unique identifier
    • 16 bit AS Number (ASN)

Routing between ASes

Two key challenges

  • Scaling
  • Administrative structure
    • Issues of autonomy, policy, privacy

Recall Also… to MIT to UW UCB to NYU Destination Next Hop UCB 4 UW 5 MIT 2 NYU 3 Forwarding Table 111010010 MIT switch# switch# switch# switch#

Scaling

  • Every router must be able to forward packets to any destination - Given address, it needs to know “next hop” (table)
  • Naive: Have an entry for each address
    • There would be over 10^ 8 entries!
    • And routing updates per destination!
  • Any ideas on how to improve scalability?

Two Key Challenges

  • Scaling
  • Administrative structure
    • Issues of autonomy, policy, privacy

Administrative structure shapes

Interdomain routing

  • ASes want freedom to pick routes based on policy
    • “My traffic can’t be carried over my competitor’s network”
    • “I don’t want to carry A’s traffic through my network”
    • Not expressible as Internet-wide “shortest path”!
  • ASes want autonomy
    • Want to choose their own internal routing protocol
    • Want to choose their own policy
  • ASes want privacy
    • choice of network topology, routing policies, etc.

Today

  • Addressing
  • BGP
    • today: context and key ideas
    • next lecture: details and issues

Addressing Goal: Scalable Routing

  • State: Small forwarding tables at routers
    • Much less than the number of hosts
  • Churn: Limited rate of change in routing tables
    • Traffic, inconsistencies, complexity

Ability to aggregate addresses is crucial for both

(one entry to summarize many addresses)

Hence, IP Addressing: Hierarchical

  • Hierarchical address structure
  • Hierarchical address allocation
  • Hierarchical addresses and topology

IP Addresses (IPv4)

  • Unique 32 - bit number associated with a host
  • Represented with the dotted-quad notation, e.g., 12.34.158.5 :

Hierarchy in IP Addressing

  • 32 bits are partitioned into a prefix and suffix components
  • Prefix is the network component; suffix is host component
  • Interdomain routing operates on the network prefix
  • Notation and terminology: 12.34.158.0/23 represents a “slash 23” network with a 23 bit prefix and 2 9 host addresses

Network (23 bits) Host (9 bits) 12 34 158 5

History of Internet Addressing

  • Always dotted-quad notation
  • Always network/host address split
  • But nature of that split has changed over time