Networking P. Jakma Internet-Draft Sun Microsystems Expires: April 12, 2009 October 9, 2008 Revised Default Values for the BGP 'Minimum Route Advertisement Interval' draft-jakma-mrai-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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- Drafts. 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 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2009. Abstract This document briefly examines what is known about the effects of the BGP MRAI timer, particularly on convergence. It highlights published work which suggests the MRAI interval as deployed has an adverse effect on the convergence time of BGP. It then recommends revised, lower default values for the MRAI timer, thought to be more suited to today's Internet environment. Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations October 2008 Table of Contents 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. The MRAI Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Known effects of the MRAI timer on convergence . . . . . . 3 1.3. Interaction with Flap-Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4. Current Status of the MRAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Risk Evaluation in the Choice of MRAI Time . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Recommended values for the MRAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8 Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations October 2008 1. Background The proper functioning of the [BGP] routing protocol is of great importance to the Internet. Issues regarding matters of its stability and convergence have been documented widely, such as in [BGP-STAB], [bgp-converge] and [Potaroo0607]. One such issue is the effect of 'Minimum Route Advertisement Interval' (MRAI). 1.1. The MRAI Timer The Minimum Route Advertisement Interval (MRAI) timer is specified in RFC4271 [BGP]. This timer acts to rate-limit updates, on a per- destination basis. [BGP] suggests values of 30s and 5s for this interval for eBGP and iBGP respectively. The MRAI must also be applied to withdrawals according to RFC4271 [BGP], a change from the earlier RFC1771. Some implementations apply this rate-limiting on a per-peer basis, presumably an adequate approximation. Some implementations apply it to withdrawal methods (often called "WRATE" in the literature). Some implementations do not apply MRAI at all. 1.2. Known effects of the MRAI timer on convergence The MRAI timer serves to suppress messages which BGP would otherwise send out to describe transitory states, and so allow BGP to converge with significantly fewer messages sent. This beneficial effect of the MRAI timer, in terms of # of messages, increases as the timer is increased until an optimum value is reached, after which the beneficial effect stabilises. [bgp-converge] [mrai-final] In terms of convergence time, a similar beneficial effect is seen as the MRAI increases to the same optimum value. However as the timer value is increased past the optimum, the convergence time increases again linearly - the scale of this increase is worse with WRATE. [bgp-converge] [mrai-final] The optimum MRAI timer value is dependent on several factors, most particularly the topology. The optimum value will differ between different subsets of the Internet. [mrai-final] 1.3. Interaction with Flap-Damping As the MRAI helps eliminate some updates, it interacts with flap- damping [BGP-DAMP]. The lower the MRAI timer, the greater the risk of crossing below the threshold of the optimum value. So with a Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations October 2008 lower value, there is an increased number of updates somewhere within the BGP system, and hence an increased risk of paths being dampened, which otherwise would not. So, in presence of significant flap-damping deployment and given the uncertainty of what the optimum is, it is reasonable to err towards selecting a value of the MRAI timer significantly higher than the optimum. However, given that flap-damping increasingly is discouraged [RIPE-378] in Internet routing, this particular need to be conservative in the choice of MRAI timer value may be less important. 1.4. Current Status of the MRAI The current recommended value of 30s may be far higher than is optimal, based on observations of certain parameters related to the topology of the Internet. In [mrai-final] it is suggested that the optimal value may be between 5s ('semi-safe') to 15s ('safe'). The estimation of the 'safe' value here is of no relevance if WRATE is universally deployed, as in such a case the 'semi-safe' value and 'safe' value are the same. Further empirical work by the same authors [mrai-internet] suggests that the optimal, Internet MRAI may be below 5s. Further, [BGP-STAB] and [Potaroo0607] argue that operational conditions (e.g. different routers using different MRAI values) mean the MRAI is having an adverse effect even on the number of messages sent, and so further exacerbating convergence problems in the global BGP system, such as path hunting. The [BGP-STAB] document goes further still and argues that MRAI be deprecated in favour of some better way of damping BGP UPDATES, however there are no clear proposals before the IDR as of this writing for such changes to BGP. 2. Risk Evaluation in the Choice of MRAI Time Though there is an optimum value for the MRAI, it's unlikely that it can be determined empirically or otherwise for the general Internet. It may even not be possible, as the optimum MRAI will differ for different subsets of the Internet. Some degree of guesstimation at a reasonable value for the MRAI is required, which is an exercise in risk; whether to err towards fast convergence at the risk of a disproportionate increase in BGP messaging, or to err to the side of an optimal number of messages at the expense of convergence. Arguably, economising on bandwidth and control-plane processing power is today less important than the convergence time of BGP, than in Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations October 2008 times past. Presuming this, any new recommendations for the MRAI should seek to err slightly to the side of convergence, rather than erring towards minimising BGP traffic. Further, if we assume most implementations apply the MRAI to withdrawals, then the Internet BGP topology effectively is WRATE- enabled, and [mrai-final] suggests there is even less benefit to erring toward a higher MRAI. The most definite risk of lowering the MRAI is the increased risk of flap-damping, if the value is set too much below the optimum. Therefore, taking into account estimations of that optimum is required. That said, at least one BGP implementation by default does not apply any MRAI at all. 3. Recommended values for the MRAI The suggested default values for the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer given in RFC4271 [BGP] are hereby revised to be 5s for eBGP connections, and 1s or less for iBGP connections. 4. IANA Considerations There are no requests made to IANA in this document. 5. Security Considerations This document raises no new security considerations. 6. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Manav Bhatia for his helpful review and comments. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [BGP] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations October 2008 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, February 2001. 7.2. Informative References [BGP-STAB] Li, T. and G. Huston, "BGP Stability Improvements", I-D draft-li-bgp-stability, June 2007. [BGP-DAMP] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998. [Potaroo0607] Huston, G., "Damping BGP", June 2007, . [RIPE-378] Smith, P. and P. Panigl, "RIPE RRG: Recommendations on Route-flap Damping", May 2006, . [bgp-converge] Griffin, T. and B. Premore, "An Experimental Analysis of BGP Convergence Time", November 2001, . [mrai-final] Qiu, J., Hao, R., and X. Li, "An Experimental Study of the BGP Rate-limiting Timer", June 2003, . [mrai-internet] Qiu, J., Hao, R., and X. Li, "The Optimal Rate-Limiting Timer of BGP for Routing Convergence", April 2005, . Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations October 2008 Author's Address Paul Jakma Sun Microsystems Springfield Linlithgow, West Lothian EH49 7LR Scotland Phone: +44 1506 673150 Email: paul.jakma@sun.com Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BGP MRAI Timer Value Recommendations October 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Jakma Expires April 12, 2009 [Page 8]