Mechanisms for a multi-homed host to pick the best router

Cayle Spandon cayle.spandon at gmail.com
Wed Sep 17 21:32:29 CDT 2008


(My apologies, in advance, for the fact that this question is very long
winded.)

I have a server which is multi-homed to N routers as shown below:

     +---+
R1---|   |
     |   |
R2---|   |
...  | S |
     |   |
Rn---|   |
     +---+

This server is a host; it is not a router in the sense that it will never
forward any packets (but it might run routing protocols as discussed below).

Also, for the sake of simplicity in this discussion, let's say this server
only receives inbound TCP connections; it never initiates outbound TCP
connections.

Finally, this server has a loopback address L. All traffic destined to the
server uses address L as the destination address. All N routers have a
static route to L and inject that route into their routing protocol
(possibly as part of an aggregate).

Now, imagine the server receives an inbound connection from another host
whose address is A. Thus, the TCP SYN packet which S receives has source
address A and destination address L.

When the server sends TCP traffic for that same connection back to host A,
it needs to pick one of the N routers, in other words, it needs to pick an
outbound interface from its N interfaces.

Traditionally, this is done by doing a best-match lookup for address A in
the forwarding table of the server.

One could install a ECMP default route which points to all N routers. In
this case, the downstream router would essentially be picked at random (for
each connection, assuming 5-tuple hashing).

The problem is that some routers are "better" than other routers in the
sense that they are closer to the final destination address A. (For example,
each router could be connected to a different ISP.)

One way for the server to pick the "optimal" downstream router, is to run
"stub BGP" between the server and each of the routers. By "stub BGP" I mean
that the server uses the BGP session only to learn routes. It advertises its
own loopback L, but it never advertises any other routes, and it never
propagates and routes from one BGP session to another BGP session.

The server would have N BGP sessions and learn the full default-free BGP
route table over each of those sessions. In other words, the server would
end up with approximately N x 250,000 routes in its RIB and 250,000 routes
in its FIB.

While this approach would certainly allow the server to pick the optimal
downstream router in all cases, I would prefer not to run routing protocols
on this server for a number of reasons:

- I don't want to the spend memory and CPU on such large RIBs and FIBs.

- I'm afraid that other routers will attempt to forward traffic through the
server (due to accidental misconfigurations) once it starts participating in
the routing protocols.

- Since there might be many of these servers (many more than the number of
routers) I might end up stretching the routers beyond their scaling limits
(number of BGP sessions, link state database size, etc.) and destabilizing
the network.

- I know there are good open source implementation of routing protocols, but
still, I'm nervous that any instability or bugs on the servers could end up
screwing up the routers (e.g. persistent BGP flaps).

- One possible variation is that the server is a client of some
route-reflectors which are not in the forwarding path (i.e. next-hop-self is
not enabled). In that case, I might end up needing to do BGP next-hop
resolution for a very large number of BGP next-hops. This, in turn, implies
that the server might need to also run OSPF in a very large flat area 0.

For all these reasons, I don't want to run BGP on the server.

Someone suggested an idea to me which seems almost to simple to work, but I
cannot find any good reason why it would not work.

The idea is "the server simply sends all outbound traffic for the TCP
connection out over the same interface over which the most recent TCP
traffic for that connection was received".

So, for example, if the server receives the SYN from router R3, it would
send the SYN ACK and all subsequent packets for the TCP connection over that
same interface R3.

If the inbound packets for that same TCP connection start arriving from a
different router (e.g. because of link failure), say R4, then the server
also switches the outbound packets to that same router R4.

I am aware that routing is not always symmetrical. In other words, I am
aware that the best route from A to Z might be A->B->C->Z while the best
route from Z to A might be Z->D->A.

However, since the IP routing tables form an inverted tree, it seems to me
that in realistic scenarios the traffic should still arrive at A (maybe over
a non-optimal path in rare cases) if Z sends the reverse traffic to C
instead of D. It seems unlikely (impossible?) that this would cause a
routing loop.

I can think of the following problems with this approach:

(Problem 1) It only works for inbound TCP connections and not for outbound
TCP connections. For outbound TCP connections we would not know which router
to send the first SYN packet to.

(Problem 2) If there is a topology change after the TCP connection has been
established, the traffic might follow a sub-optimal path. In extreme cases,
after a topology change the TCP connection might be lost despite the
availability of an alternative feasible path. For example, if server S is
using router R1 to reach host A, and router R1 can no longer reach host A,
and host A is not sending *any* traffic to server S, then server S is not
going to find out about the topology change (since S doesn't receive any
traffic from A), and the connection is going to be dropped (because S's
retransmission will never reach A). Many application layer protocols have a
keep-alive message at the application layer; in that case the problem would
not occur because host A would always be sending some traffic to server S
which would allow S to discover the topology change by virtue of A's traffic
arriving from a different router.

My question for the NANOG community are these:

(Question 1) Can you think of any additional problems with this approach?
Specifically, I am interested in persistent failures in the absence of
topology changes.

(Question 2) Is there another mechanism for the server (a multi-homed host)
to pick a best router, short of running stub BGP? Are there any standards
for this?

(Question 3) If the answer to question 2 is "no", is there any interest in
standardizing a protocol for a multi-homed host to pick a best next-hop
router? One could think of this is a host-to-router routing protocol. One
might call the existing routing protocols router-to-router protocols
(because I think we are abusing them by running them on hosts). This is
somewhat analogous to the multicast routing world where we use different
protocols for router-to-router multicast (PIM) versus host-to-router (IGMP).

-- Cayle



More information about the NANOG mailing list