[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 Draft is active
In: IS-auth-wait
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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/