FIB Aggregation Zartash Uzmi draft-uzmi-smalta-01 (with Ahsan Tariq and Paul Francis) FIB Aggregation Work  First introduced: IETF 76    draft-zhang-fibaggregation Level 1-4 SMALTA (at IETF78)  Better (near-optimal) Normal Router Operation RIB Primary.

download report

Transcript FIB Aggregation Zartash Uzmi draft-uzmi-smalta-01 (with Ahsan Tariq and Paul Francis) FIB Aggregation Work  First introduced: IETF 76    draft-zhang-fibaggregation Level 1-4 SMALTA (at IETF78)  Better (near-optimal) Normal Router Operation RIB Primary.

FIB Aggregation

Zartash Uzmi draft-uzmi-smalta-01 (with Ahsan Tariq and Paul Francis)

FIB Aggregation Work

 First introduced: IETF 76   draft-zhang-fibaggregation Level 1-4 Normal Router Operation RIB Primary Routes FIB  SMALTA (at IETF78)  Better (near-optimal) With Aggregation Primary Routes from RIB Aggregate FIB 4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 2

Changes since IETF 78

 Completed, but not reflected in current draft   Refinement of SMALTA Thorough Evaluation (with data from a real ISP)  High confidence level in results  In progress (Consolidation of the two drafts)   Original (Level 1-4) draft (IETF 76) SMALTA draft (IETF 78) 4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 3

Evaluation of SMALTA

 Data Sets   Routeviews (yearly: 12/2001 to 12/2010) Various routers from a Tier-1 service provider  Based on router type, location, #interfaces  Main findings: Savings    In FIB memory (line card): 35% and upwards (as large as 75%) In #prefixes: ~12% better (than savings in memory) In lookup time (#memory accesses): ~25% faster  Update processing: <1 FIB update per RIB update (on average) 4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 4

L1/L2/SMALTA: Expectations?

Aggregated prefixes (as % of original) Router SMALTA

R1 37% R2 R3 36% 40% R4 R5 R6 R7 21% 13% 19% 55%

Level 1

68% 66% 68% 55% 49% 54% 79%

Level 2

53% 51% 58% 37% 28% 35% 72%

For 2 Internet Gateway Routers (R1,R2) and 5 Access Routers in Provider Network

4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 5

Aggregation and #next hops

Fewer aggregation opportunities with more nexthops Routeviews 12/2010

# Unique nexthops

Memory savings (for Tree Bitmap) are somewhat (~12%) lower

4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 6

#Memory Accesses/Lookup time

Lookup time (Tree Bitmap) varies in accordance with … the #prefixes after aggregation

4/28/2020

5 Access Routers (Provider Network)

Effective # Unique nexthops

For Internet Gateway Routers, about 25% fewer memory accesses when using Tree Bitmap

FIB Aggregation 7

Incorporating Updates

Call to

Snapshot

function

An IGR (Internet Gateway Router) in Provider Network

#updates (in 10K)

#aggregated prefixes is near-optimal after a large number of updates are incorporated 12-hour Update Trace

4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 8

Updates

FIB downloads

4/28/2020 #Updates b/w consecutive calls to “snapshot” function #Updates b/w consecutive calls to “snapshot” function

An IGR in Provider Network 12-hour Update Trace (~180K updates)

FIB Aggregation 9

COMMENTS / QUESTIONS

ADDITIONAL SLIDES

FIB Aggregation: basic idea

Level 1 Specifics Removed Level 2 Specifics Combined (beyond L1) 4/28/2020

Original Table /23

A

/22

A

Aggregated Table

A

/22

A

/22 /23

A A

/23 Exploit aggregation opportunities over entire Table

FIB Aggregation 12

Basic Idea for Updates

Example 2: Aggregate specifics [having same next hop] – Level2

/22

A

/23

A A

/23

A 4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 13

Where does SMALTA stand?

Level 1

Aggregation Opportunities

Specifics removed Level2 Level 3 Level 4 Specifics combined Specifics combined over holes ORTC [1999] Exploits all: Optimal SMALTA Exploits all (~ORTC)

Updates Whiteholing

Y Y Y Y

N

Y N N

Y Y

N N

RIB snapshot

Aggregate

FIB: Snapshot Algo BGP updates

Aggregated table: Update Algo

4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 14

Snapshot and WITHDRAW

C

Original

With Level 1-4 Can’t aggregate any further!

Aggregated (SMALTA) Deaggregation  Opportunities to aggregate more B A A

Withdraw Withdraw

A A B C A C A C B A B B 4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 15

Remarks

 SMALTA Snapshot (300-400ms) ~3-4x more processing than L1 and L2 Applied infrequently  SMALTA Update ~ same processing time as L1 and L2 (typical: 3  s) Fewer avg. RIB-to-FIB downloads  Our view: another option for FIB aggregation 4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 16

One-shot + ANNOUNCE + WITHDRAW

C

Original Aggregated

(with SMALTA) C A B A A

Announce(Q)

B

Announce(Q)

C A C A B Q A 4/28/2020

What if?

Withdraw

FIB Aggregation B Q 17

Incremental Updates: Analysis

 How far aggregated you are after N updates?

 How long does it take to incorporate updates?

 How many RIB to FIB downloads per update?

4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 18

Practicalities

 Can’t aggregate entire table on every update  Snapshot aggregation    Take current snapshot of RIB and Aggregate On “significant” routing changes (e.g., BGP hard reset) Perform a monolithic download after Snapshot  To reflect BGP updates in FIB  Incremental updates to aggregated table 4/28/2020 FIB Aggregation 19