Experts choose a new routing protocol for the Internet
Network World magazine has published a large article on the Routing Research Group 's ad hoc working group within the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), which is creating the next generation routing protocol.
The fact is that now backbone routers use the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). All routers must constantly update the host table and share these tables with each other. So, these tables have recently increased so much that there are problems with the processing of such a volume of information. Today BGP tables contain information about about 244,000 hosts, whereas a year ago there were 195,000 records, and six years ago - 100,000. Although equipment manufacturers assure that their devices can cope with 10 million tables, but so fast the increase in the number of records still raises some concerns.
Another disadvantage of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the need to update the IP addresses on the corporate network each time a company changes the provider. If the development of Routing Research Group is successful, this tedious task of network administrators will forever be a thing of the past.
')
Dual IP address functionality (node identification and its location in the network) is likely to be clearly divided into two parts.
The Routing Research Group working group has been around for many years, but recently it has dramatically increased its activity. Even the fact that six months ago they removed the former head of the group of Swedish professor Avri Doria from the post speaks about the seriousness of the intentions of the IRTF. His place was taken immediately by two: routing systems specialist Tom Lee, who worked at Cisco, Juniper Networks and Procket Networks (he is now back in Cisco again) and Lixia Zhang, a professor of computer science at UCLA. Interested companies joined the discussion of the protocol, including Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Huawei Technologies, AT & T, BT Group and Arbor Networks.
Experts believe that the work of the IRTF is the most radical attempt to rethink the traffic routing system in the entire history of the Internet. Traffic routing and host addressing are two very close systems. Now, when migrating to the new IPv6 protocol, it's time to upgrade the routing system as well.
Many options are offered as the main alternatives to BGP, but two technologies have the most real chances: LISP and Six / One.
The Locator / ID Separation Protocol (LISP) was created by a group of Cisco engineers to divide the functionality of IP addresses into two parts: host identifiers and routing locators. The concept involves the installation of tunnel routers that will add LISP headers to information packets as they move through the network.
The Six / One protocol was created at Ericsson and offers an alternative for IPv6 networks. With this approach, hosts receive fixed IP addresses that change only in the high-order bits, depending on which provider the host is currently connected to. These high bits are automatically substituted as soon as packets go through the new provider.
The IRTF organization hopes that all interested parties will be able to find consensus over the next two to three years. Whatever protocol is chosen as a standard, it will be sold for at least five years before its commercial implementation.
The fact is that now backbone routers use the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). All routers must constantly update the host table and share these tables with each other. So, these tables have recently increased so much that there are problems with the processing of such a volume of information. Today BGP tables contain information about about 244,000 hosts, whereas a year ago there were 195,000 records, and six years ago - 100,000. Although equipment manufacturers assure that their devices can cope with 10 million tables, but so fast the increase in the number of records still raises some concerns.
Another disadvantage of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the need to update the IP addresses on the corporate network each time a company changes the provider. If the development of Routing Research Group is successful, this tedious task of network administrators will forever be a thing of the past.
')
Dual IP address functionality (node identification and its location in the network) is likely to be clearly divided into two parts.
The Routing Research Group working group has been around for many years, but recently it has dramatically increased its activity. Even the fact that six months ago they removed the former head of the group of Swedish professor Avri Doria from the post speaks about the seriousness of the intentions of the IRTF. His place was taken immediately by two: routing systems specialist Tom Lee, who worked at Cisco, Juniper Networks and Procket Networks (he is now back in Cisco again) and Lixia Zhang, a professor of computer science at UCLA. Interested companies joined the discussion of the protocol, including Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Huawei Technologies, AT & T, BT Group and Arbor Networks.
Experts believe that the work of the IRTF is the most radical attempt to rethink the traffic routing system in the entire history of the Internet. Traffic routing and host addressing are two very close systems. Now, when migrating to the new IPv6 protocol, it's time to upgrade the routing system as well.
Many options are offered as the main alternatives to BGP, but two technologies have the most real chances: LISP and Six / One.
The Locator / ID Separation Protocol (LISP) was created by a group of Cisco engineers to divide the functionality of IP addresses into two parts: host identifiers and routing locators. The concept involves the installation of tunnel routers that will add LISP headers to information packets as they move through the network.
The Six / One protocol was created at Ericsson and offers an alternative for IPv6 networks. With this approach, hosts receive fixed IP addresses that change only in the high-order bits, depending on which provider the host is currently connected to. These high bits are automatically substituted as soon as packets go through the new provider.
The IRTF organization hopes that all interested parties will be able to find consensus over the next two to three years. Whatever protocol is chosen as a standard, it will be sold for at least five years before its commercial implementation.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/14729/
All Articles