1 o two issues in practice – scale – administrative autonomy o autonomous system (as) or region...

35
1 Two issues in practice Scale Administrative autonomy Autonomous system (AS) or region Intra autonomous system routing protocol Gateway routers Inter-autonoumous system routing protocol Hierarchical routing

Upload: jaquelin-marrow

Post on 22-Dec-2015

224 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

1

Two issues in practice– Scale– Administrative autonomy

Autonomous system (AS) or region Intra autonomous system routing protocol Gateway routers Inter-autonoumous system routing protocol

Hierarchical routing

Page 2: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

2

Fig 4.11

Page 3: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

3

Fig 4.13

IPv4, IP version 6 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)

The Internet Protocol (IP)

Page 4: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

4

IPv4 addressing– An IP address is associated with an interface rather than with the host

or router containing the interface.– 32 bits long– Dotted-decimal notation (pp. 322)– Fig 4.14

– 223.1.1.0/24 where /24 -> a network mask, network prefix, an IP network, a network

Page 5: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

5

Fig 4.15

Page 6: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

6

Classful addressing: A, B, C, D Fig 4.17

Classless Interdomain Routing (CIDR): e.g., a.b.c.d/21 for 2000 hosts

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)– Allocate IP address– Manage the DNS root servers– Assign domain names– Resolve domain name disputes

Page 7: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

7

Obtaining a host address– Manual configuration– Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)

Page 8: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

8

Page 9: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

9

Fig 4.21

Addressing, Routing, and Forwarding

Page 10: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

10

Fig 4.22

Page 11: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

11

Fig 4.23

Type of service: differentiated service (e.g., Cisco) IPv6: no fragmentation at routers Why does TCP/IP perform error checking at the both layers? IP options were dropped in the IPv6 header.

IPv4 datagram format

Page 12: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

12

MTU(max transfer unit): max amount of data that a link-layer packet can carry, e.g., 1,500 bytes for Ethernet, 576 bytes for wide-area links

Fragment The designers of IPv4 decided to put the job of datagram reass

embly in the end systems rather than in network routers.

IP datagram fragmentation

Page 13: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

13

Fig 4.24

Page 14: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

14

Table 4.3

Page 15: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

15

Error reporting Above IP Fig 4.25

ICMP

Page 16: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

16

For a newly arriving host, the DHCP does– DHCP server discovery: broadcasting– DHCP server offer(s): the proposed IP address for the client, the ne

twork mask, and an IP address lease time– DHCP request– DHCP ACK

From a mobility aspect, how about DHCP?

DHCP

Page 17: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

17

Fig 4.27

Page 18: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

18

The NAT-enabled router does not run an Inter-AS routing protocol.

The NAT-enabled router behaves to the outside world as a single device with a single IP address. (port numbers)

Fig 4.28

Network Address Translators (NATs)

Page 19: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

19

Intra-AS routing: RIP and OSPF Routing Information Protocol

– Distance vector protocol– Hop count as a cost metric– Max cost of a path: 15– Every 30 seconds for RIP advertisements

Open Shortest Path First– Link state protocol– Once every 30 minutes– Adv.: security, multiple same-cost paths, integrated support for uni

cast and multicast routing, and support for hierarchy within a single routing domain.

Routing in the Internet

Page 20: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

20

Fig 4.35

Page 21: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

21

Inter-AS routing: BGP– Path vector protocol– Exchange path information than cost information– Routing policy– On TCP

Page 22: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

22

Fig 4.38 (router arch)

Fig 4.39 (input port)

Router

Page 23: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

23

Given the need to operate at today’s high link speeds, a number of ways to find out an appropriate forwarding table entry.

– A linear search– Store the forwarding table entries in a tree data structure– Content addressable memories– Forwarding table entries in a cache

Page 24: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

24

Fig 4.40 (switching fabric)

Page 25: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

25

Fig 4.41 (output ports)

Packet queues at both the input ports and the output ports -> packet loss depending on the traffic load, the relative speed of the switching fabric, and the line speed.

Page 26: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

26

Fig 4.42

Packet scheduler: choose one packet among queued for transmission

– First-come-first-served (FCFS) scheduling– Weighted fair queueing (WFQ)– Important for quality-of-service guarantees.

Page 27: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

27

Drop a packet before the buffer is full in order to provide a congestion signal to the sender -> active queue management (Random Early Detection (RED))

Head-of-the-line (HOL) blocking in an input-queued switch Fig 4.43

Page 28: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

28

Changes in IPv6– Expanded addressing capabilities (32 to 128 bits), anycast address– A streamlined 40-bute header– Flow labeling and priority– Fig 4.44

IPv6

Page 29: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

29

IPv6 vs IPv4– Fragmentation/reassembly: IPv6 does not allow for fragmentation

and reassembly at intermediate routers.– Header checksum: IPv4 header checksum needed to be recompute

d at every router.– Options: next headers pointer in IPv6

ICMP for IPv6– Packet too big, unrecognized IPv6 options error codes– IGMP

Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6– Flag day– Dual-stack: DNS to determine whether another node is IPv6 or IPv4– Tunneling

Page 30: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

30

Fig 4.45

Fig 4.46

Page 31: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

31

Unicast vs multicast The sending of a packet from one sender to multiple receivers

with a single send operation. Network-layer aspects of multicast Handle multicast groups

– One-to-all unicast– Application-level multicast– Explicit multicast at the network layer

How to identify the receivers of a multicast datagram?– Address indirection: a single identifier is used for the group of rec

eivers -> class D and how to address a datagram sent to these receivers?

Multicast routing

Page 32: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

32

Fig 4.47

Page 33: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

33

Fig 4.48

Page 34: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

34

IGMP– Group membership protocol– Locally between a host and an attached router– Means for a host to inform its attached router that an application ru

nning one the host wants to join a specific multicast group– Joining a multicast group is receiver-driven

Network-layer multicast algorithms (PIM, DVMRP, MOSPF)– Coordinate the multicast routers so that multicast datagrams are r

outed to their final destinations Table 4.4

Page 35: 1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers

35

Fig 4.50