idnits 2.17.1 draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RIPE-378], [RFC2439]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 120 has weird spacing: '...S Forum apops...' -- The document date (June 21, 2012) is 4317 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 355, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-rfd-usable' is defined on line 363, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable' is defined on line 369, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force S. Tsuchiya, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Informational S. Kawamura 5 Expires: December 23, 2012 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd. 6 R. Bush 7 C. Pelsser 8 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 9 June 21, 2012 11 Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey 12 draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-05 14 Abstract 16 BGP Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] is a mechanism that targets route 17 stability. It penalyzes routes that flap with the aim of reducing 18 CPU load on the routers. 20 But it has side-effects. Thus, in 2006, RIPE recommended not to use 21 Route Flap Damping (see [RIPE-378]). 23 Now, some researchers propose to turn RFD, with less aggressive 24 parameters, back on [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable]. 26 This document describes results of a survey conducted among service 27 provider on their use of BGP Route Flap Damping. 29 Status of this Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2012. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Survey Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2. Survey's target and period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 3.1. Q1.Which is the best description of your job role? . . . . 3 69 3.1.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 3.1.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 3.2. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 3.3. Q3.If you select No on Q2,why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 3.4. Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? . . . 4 74 3.5. Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap 75 Damping Considered Usable?'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 3.6. Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do 77 you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? . . . . 5 78 3.7. Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress 79 Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default 80 value on implementations should be changed to 6K?'' . . . . 5 81 3.8. Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box. . . . . 5 82 3.8.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 3.8.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 84 4. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 5. Summary of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 86 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 87 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 88 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 89 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 90 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 91 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 93 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 95 1. Survey Purpose 97 RIPE published some recommendations such as [RIPE-178],[RIPE- 98 210],[RIPE-229] and [RIPE-378]. 100 The purpose of this survey is to understand the current usage and 101 requirements of Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] among service providers. 103 2. Survey's target and period 105 2.1. Japan 107 Target: Japan Network Operator Group janog@janog.gr.jp 109 Period: Jan 28,2011 - Feb 12,2011 111 2.2. Global 113 Target: All operators who has answered the survey 114 https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey. 116 We posted this document to the following mailing list. 118 North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org 119 RIPE Routing Working Group routing-wg@ripe.net 120 Asia Pacific OperatorS Forum apops@apops.net 121 Africa Network Operators Group afnog@afnog.org 122 South Asian Network Operators Group sanog@sanog.org 123 Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group 124 lacnog@lacnic.net 126 Period:Mar 7,2011 - May 25,2011 128 3. Survey Results 130 3.1. Q1.Which is the best description of your job role? 132 3.1.1. Japan 134 This question did not exist Japan version. 136 3.1.2. Global 137 BGP operator:27 138 Researcher:1 139 Engineer of vendor:3 140 Engineer of Network/System Integrator:13 141 Student:0 142 Other:0 144 3.2. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? 146 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 147 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 148 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 149 | YES | 5 | 8 | 13 | 20.6 | 150 | NO | 8 | 36 | 49 | 77.8 | 151 | Skipped Q2. | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 | 152 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 154 3.3. Q3.If you select No on Q2,why? 156 +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+ 157 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total | Percentage[%] | 158 | | | | Number | | 159 +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+ 160 | Do not have the need | 3 | 7 | 10 | 19.6 | 161 | Did not know about | 2 | 3 | 5 | 9.8 | 162 | the feature | | | | | 163 | No benefits expected | 3 | 7 | 10 | 19.6 | 164 | Customers would | 1 | 4 | 5 | 9.8 | 165 | complain | | | | | 166 | Because I read | 2 | 13 | 15 | 29.4 | 167 | [RIPE-378] | | | | | 168 | Other | 3 | 3 | 6 | 11.8 | 169 +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+ 171 1 person answered Q3,even if he selected "Yes" on Q2. 173 3.4. Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? 175 +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 176 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 177 +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 178 | Default | 3 | 3 | 6 | 40.0 | 179 | parameters | | | | | 180 | [RIPE-178] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.7 | 181 | [RIPE-210] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 182 | [RIPE-229] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.7 | 183 | Other | 3 | 4 | 7 | 46.7 | 184 +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 185 1 person answered Q4, even if he selected "No" on Q2. 187 3.5. Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping 188 Considered Usable?'' 190 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 191 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 192 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 193 | YES | 12 | 21 | 33 | 52.4 | 194 | NO | 7 | 22 | 29 | 46.0 | 195 | Skipped Q5. | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.6 | 196 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 198 One person skipped Q2, but answered Q5. 200 3.6. Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this 201 limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? 203 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 204 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 205 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 206 | YES | 10 | 14 | 24 | 38.1 | 207 | NO | 9 | 23 | 32 | 50.8 | 208 | Skipped Q6. | 0 | 7 | 7 | 11.1 | 209 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 211 3.7. Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress Threshold should 212 be set to 6K.Do you think the default value on implementations 213 should be changed to 6K?'' 215 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 216 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 217 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 218 | YES | N/A | 17 | 17 | 38.6 | 219 | NO | N/A | 18 | 18 | 40.9 | 220 | Skipped Q7. | N/A | 9 | 9 | 20.5 | 221 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 223 This question did not exist Japan version. 225 3.8. Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box. 227 Free format 229 3.8.1. Japan 231 -Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped 232 sometimes. 234 -We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non- 235 damped route. 237 -From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us 238 that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and 239 ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?" 241 -We use damping pretty heavily 243 -I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router 244 has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD. 246 3.8.2. Global 248 -Statistical reports from big Service Providers may better visualize 249 the situation. 251 -best current practices is nice, but always needs to be adjusted to 252 reflect local network settings. 254 -We used RFD in the past and came to the conclusion that we do not 255 want to use RFD any more. We still have it configured to be able to 256 get Flap statistics out of our Cisco boxes, but no prefixes get 257 dampended 259 -We recently removed all RFD from the configs due to the information 260 read on the topic among the preso's on the NANOG Archive. 262 -after seeing this survey, I read the draft; sounds promising; would 263 be nice to see vendors start to implement it. 265 -Q3, other: Juniper RFD is broken, default values count penalty for 266 both update and withdrawal, and they would not fix that. No clear 267 motivation for us, has caused outage when our customers (with 268 primiary and backup connection to us) had a flapping link. 270 -Strong desire to see the path vector penalized rather than the 271 prefix. 273 4. Analysis 275 Operator's reason why RFD disable,it depends on position of BGP 276 network. 278 If the network is stub and the router has enough resource against 279 flapping ,Route Flap Damping does not really needs.In this case,if 280 the upstream ISP enabled Route Flap Damping,the downstream complained 281 about this.The survey shows the result in Q8. 283 Also,total of 5 people selected "Customer would complain" as reason 284 of Route Flap Damping disble. 286 This is good example as current too damping RFD is harmful.RFD 287 targets are to protect customer resource such as CPU and provide 288 stable internet reachability to customer,but current RFD would be 289 disaffection. 291 .--. 292 _(. `) 293 _( `)_ 294 ( Internet `) 295 ( ` . ) ) 296 `--(_______)---' 297 \ \ 298 \ \ 299 \ \ 300 +----------+ +----------+ 301 | ISP-A |\\\\\\\\\\\| ISP-B | 302 +----------+ +----------+ 303 | \ | \ 304 | \ | \ 305 | \ | \ 306 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 307 |ISP-C| |ISP-D| |ISP-E| |ISP-F| 308 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 309 Figure.1 311 Figure.1 shows BGP topology.ISP-A and ISP-B is big service 312 provider.ISP-A peering with ISP-B and ISP-D.ISP-B peering with ISP- A 313 and ISP-F.ISP-C and ISP-E buy transit from ISP-A and ISP-B.ISP-A 314 execute RFD and ISP-B not execute RFD. 316 In this case,ISP-C and ISP-D would complain to ISP-A,because internet 317 route and itself are often disappeared due to too damping.ISP-E and 318 ISP-F would not complain about Route Flap Damping.But if once the 319 internet would be unstable,the influence will be reach to all of ISP- 320 B,ISP-E and ISP-F even though ISP-A,ISP-C and ISP-D are safe. 322 We can recognize the people who selected "NO" on Q2 and "Yes"on Q6 323 are really expecting implementation of [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] on the 324 router. The total number is 18. 326 Parameter implementation differs among different vendors. To avoid 327 operation complexity,[RFC2439] might need to redefine. 329 5. Summary of data 331 From the survey we see that there are many service providers with RFD 332 disabled. The reason varies among providers, but it is clear that 333 there are those who wish that RFD was made useful. 334 [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] describes how to improve RFD with minor 335 changes to some parameters. From the comments in the survey, the 336 most significant fear of enabling RFD is its impact on customers. 338 6. Acknowledgements 340 We thank the 63 respondant to this survey.We also would like to thank 341 Wesley George for helpful input. 343 7. IANA Considerations 345 This document has no actions for IANA. 347 8. Security Considerations 349 This document has no security considerations. 351 9. References 353 9.1. Normative References 355 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 356 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 358 [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route 359 Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998. 361 9.2. Informative References 363 [I-D.ietf-idr-rfd-usable] 364 Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O. 365 Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable", 366 draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress), 367 June 2012. 369 [I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable] 370 Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O. 371 Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable", 372 draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress), March 2011. 374 [RIPE-178] 375 Barber, T., Doran, S., Panigl, C., and J. Schmitz, ""RIPE 376 Routing-WG Recommendation for coor-dinated route-flap 377 damping parameters"", Feb 1998, 378 . 380 [RIPE-210] 381 Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C., and J. 382 Schmitz, ""RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coordinated 383 route-flap damping parameters"", May 2000, 384 . 386 [RIPE-229] 387 Panigl, C., Schmitz, J., Smith, P., and C. Vistoli, ""RIPE 388 Routing-WG Recommendations for Coordinated Route-flap 389 Damping Parameters"", Oct 2001, 390 . 392 [RIPE-378] 393 Smith, P. and C. Panigl, ""RIPE Routing Working Group 394 Recommendations On Route-flap Damping"", May 2006, 395 . 397 [Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?] 398 Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Patel, K., and R. Bush, ""Route 399 Flap Damping Considered Useable"", Nov 2011, . 402 Appendix A. Additional Stuff 404 This becomes an Appendix. 406 Authors' Addresses 408 Shishio Tsuchiya (editor) 409 Cisco Systems 410 Midtown Tower, 9-7-1,Akasaka 411 Minato-Ku, Tokyo 107-6227 412 Japan 414 Phone: +81 3 6434 6543 415 Email: shtsuchi@cisco.com 417 Seiichi Kawamura 418 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd. 419 14-22, Shibaura 4-chome 420 Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558 421 JAPAN 423 Phone: +81 3 3798 6085 424 Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp 426 Randy Bush 427 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 428 5147 Crystal Springs 429 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 430 US 432 Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1 433 Email: randy@psg.com 435 Cristel Pelsser 436 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 437 Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105 438 Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-kun 101-0051 439 JP 441 Phone: +81 3 5205 6464 442 Email: cristel@iij.ad.jp