[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: December 23, 2012                             NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
                                                                 R. Bush
                                                              C. Pelsser
                                         Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
                                                           June 21, 2012


              Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
             draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-05

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 among 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 December 23, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Survey's target and period  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Global  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Survey Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  Q1.Which is the best description of your job role?  . . . . 3
       3.1.1.  Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
       3.1.2.  Global  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.2.  Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ?  . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  Q3.If you select No on Q2,why?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.4.  Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? . . . 4
     3.5.  Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap
           Damping Considered Usable?''  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.6.  Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do
           you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? . . . . 5
     3.7.  Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress
           Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default
           value on implementations should be changed to 6K?'' . . . . 5
     3.8.  Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box.  . . . . 5
       3.8.1.  Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       3.8.2.  Global  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Summary of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Appendix A.  Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9





Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


1.  Survey Purpose

   RIPE published some recommendations such as [RIPE-178],[RIPE-
   210],[RIPE-229] and [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.  Japan

   Target: Japan Network Operator Group janog@janog.gr.jp

   Period: Jan 28,2011 - Feb 12,2011

2.2.  Global

   Target: All operators who has answered the survey
   https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey.

   We posted this document to the following mailing list.

      North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org
      RIPE Routing Working Group routing-wg@ripe.net
      Asia Pacific OperatorS Forum  apops@apops.net
      Africa Network Operators Group afnog@afnog.org
      South Asian Network Operators Group sanog@sanog.org
      Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
                                               lacnog@lacnic.net

   Period:Mar 7,2011 - May 25,2011


3.  Survey Results

3.1.  Q1.Which is the best description of your job role?

3.1.1.  Japan

   This question did not exist Japan version.

3.1.2.  Global







Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


       BGP operator:27
       Researcher:1
       Engineer of vendor:3
       Engineer of Network/System Integrator:13
       Student:0
       Other:0

3.2.  Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ?

   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | Answer      | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | YES         |     5 |      8 |           13 |          20.6 |
   | NO          |     8 |     36 |           49 |          77.8 |
   | Skipped Q2. |     1 |      0 |            1 |           1.6 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+

3.3.  Q3.If you select No on Q2,why?

   +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+
   | Answer               | Japan | Global |     Total | Percentage[%] |
   |                      |       |        |    Number |               |
   +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+
   | Do not have the need |     3 |      7 |        10 |          19.6 |
   | Did not know about   |     2 |      3 |         5 |           9.8 |
   | the feature          |       |        |           |               |
   | No benefits expected |     3 |      7 |        10 |          19.6 |
   | Customers would      |     1 |      4 |         5 |           9.8 |
   | complain             |       |        |           |               |
   | Because I read       |     2 |     13 |        15 |          29.4 |
   | [RIPE-378]           |       |        |           |               |
   | Other                |     3 |      3 |         6 |          11.8 |
   +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+

   1 person answered Q3,even if he selected "Yes" on Q2.

3.4.  Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use?

   +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | Answer            | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
   +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | Default           |     3 |      3 |            6 |          40.0 |
   | parameters        |       |        |              |               |
   | [RIPE-178]        |     0 |      1 |            1 |           6.7 |
   | [RIPE-210]        |     0 |      0 |            0 |           0.0 |
   | [RIPE-229]        |     0 |      1 |            1 |           6.7 |
   | Other             |     3 |      4 |            7 |          46.7 |
   +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+



Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


   1 person answered Q4, even if he selected "No" on Q2.

3.5.  Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping
      Considered Usable?''

   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | Answer      | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | YES         |    12 |     21 |           33 |          52.4 |
   | NO          |     7 |     22 |           29 |          46.0 |
   | Skipped Q5. |     0 |      1 |            1 |           1.6 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+

   One person skipped Q2, but answered Q5.

3.6.  Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this
      limitation to be relaxed to over 50K?

   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | Answer      | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | YES         |    10 |     14 |           24 |          38.1 |
   | NO          |     9 |     23 |           32 |          50.8 |
   | Skipped Q6. |     0 |      7 |            7 |          11.1 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+

3.7.  Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress Threshold should
      be set to 6K.Do you think the default value on implementations
      should be changed to 6K?''

   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | Answer      | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+
   | YES         |   N/A |     17 |           17 |          38.6 |
   | NO          |   N/A |     18 |           18 |          40.9 |
   | Skipped Q7. |   N/A |      9 |            9 |          20.5 |
   +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+

   This question did not exist Japan version.

3.8.  Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box.

   Free format

3.8.1.  Japan

   -Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped
   sometimes.



Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


   -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.

3.8.2.  Global

   -Statistical reports from big Service Providers may better visualize
   the situation.

   -best current practices is nice, but always needs to be adjusted to
   reflect local network settings.

   -We used RFD in the past and came to the conclusion that we do not
   want to use RFD any more.  We still have it configured to be able to
   get Flap statistics out of our Cisco boxes, but no prefixes get
   dampended

   -We recently removed all RFD from the configs due to the information
   read on the topic among the preso's on the NANOG Archive.

   -after seeing this survey, I read the draft; sounds promising; would
   be nice to see vendors start to implement it.

   -Q3, other: Juniper RFD is broken, default values count penalty for
   both update and withdrawal, and they would not fix that.  No clear
   motivation for us, has caused outage when our customers (with
   primiary and backup connection to us) had a flapping link.

   -Strong desire to see the path vector penalized rather than the
   prefix.


4.  Analysis

   Operator's reason why RFD disable,it depends on position of BGP
   network.

   If the network is stub and the router has enough resource against
   flapping ,Route Flap Damping does not really needs.In this case,if
   the upstream ISP enabled Route Flap Damping,the downstream complained



Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


   about this.The survey shows the result in Q8.

   Also,total of 5 people selected "Customer would complain" as reason
   of Route Flap Damping disble.

   This is good example as current too damping RFD is harmful.RFD
   targets are to protect customer resource such as CPU and provide
   stable internet reachability to customer,but current RFD would be
   disaffection.



                                   .--.
                                 _(.   `)
                               _(        `)_
                              (  Internet   `)
                             ( `  .        )  )
                              `--(_______)---'
                                 \       \
                                \         \
                               \           \
                    +----------+           +----------+
                    |  ISP-A   |\\\\\\\\\\\|   ISP-B  |
                    +----------+           +----------+
                     |        \             |        \
                     |        \             |        \
                     |        \             |        \
                 +-----+   +-----+      +-----+   +-----+
                 |ISP-C|   |ISP-D|      |ISP-E|   |ISP-F|
                 +-----+   +-----+      +-----+   +-----+
                    Figure.1

   Figure.1 shows BGP topology.ISP-A and ISP-B is big service
   provider.ISP-A peering with ISP-B and ISP-D.ISP-B peering with ISP- A
   and ISP-F.ISP-C and ISP-E buy transit from ISP-A and ISP-B.ISP-A
   execute RFD and ISP-B not execute RFD.

   In this case,ISP-C and ISP-D would complain to ISP-A,because internet
   route and itself are often disappeared due to too damping.ISP-E and
   ISP-F would not complain about Route Flap Damping.But if once the
   internet would be unstable,the influence will be reach to all of ISP-
   B,ISP-E and ISP-F even though ISP-A,ISP-C and ISP-D are safe.

   We can recognize the people who selected "NO" on Q2 and "Yes"on Q6
   are really expecting implementation of [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] on the
   router.  The total number is 18.

   Parameter implementation differs among different vendors.  To avoid



Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


   operation complexity,[RFC2439] might need to redefine.


5.  Summary of data

   From the survey we see that there are many service providers with RFD
   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.


6.  Acknowledgements

   We thank the 63 respondant to this survey.We also would like to thank
   Wesley George for helpful input.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.


8.  Security Considerations

   This document has no security considerations.


9.  References

9.1.  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.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-rfd-usable]
              Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O.
              Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable",
              draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress),
              June 2012.

   [I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable]



Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


              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
              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.















Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Shishio Tsuchiya (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Midtown Tower, 9-7-1,Akasaka
   Minato-Ku, Tokyo  107-6227
   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


   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 December 23, 2012              [Page 10]


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