shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Kevin Day toasty at dragondata.com
Thu Mar 2 13:31:40 UTC 2006


On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:07 AM, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>> ome.
>
> When I see comments like this I wonder whether people
> understand what shim6 is all about. First of all, these
> aren't YOUR hosts. They belong to somebody else. If you
> are an access provider then these hosts belong to a customer
> that is paying you to carry packets. This customer also
> pays another ISP for the same service and the hosts
> are making decisions about whether to use your service
> or your competitors.
>
> If you are a hosting provider, then these hosts, owned
> by a third party, are making decisions about whether to
> send you packets through one or another AS.
>
> Is there something inherently wrong with independent
> organizations deciding where to send their packets?

The problem is when the *hosting company* or *ISP* is multihomed and  
using shim6. The customers aren't straddling two hosting companies,  
they're using a hosting company who is using shim6.

Take us as a slightly exaggerated example(using totally made up  
bandwidth and prices, to protect NDAs). We have several boxes on our  
network that we do not control, we don't even have a login on the  
server.

In one POP we have three transit providers. NSP A gives us 10Gbps of  
bandwidth, and charges us $50/mbps. NSP B is on a GigE, but we only  
have a 500mbps commit. B charges us $75/mbps, but $150/mbps if we go  
over our commit. NSP C is also on a GigE, but we only have a 100mbps  
commit, charges us $200/mbps, and $500/mbps if we go over our commit.

I don't want a customer to touch NSP C, except for a very tiny number  
of routes where A and B aren't so great. I want to use NSP B as close  
to, but not going over, our commit as possible. I want everything  
else to go over NSP A. If any of the three transit connections go  
down, all the rules change temporarily (but hopefully not for long  
enough that we get dinged for 95th-percentile)

Putting the routing decisions in the hands of the servers(that we do  
not control) requires that we somehow impart this routing policy on  
our customers, make them keep it up to date when we change things,  
and somehow enforce that they don't break the policy.  If a customer  
sees that forcing traffic to go through NSP C results in a faster  
connection for him, they may tweak/break the selection process of  
shim6(or just ignore our policy instructions) and cost us lots of  
money. We may learn from one of our providers that they lost an OC48  
in our city, and can't handle our full traffic so we need to back off  
immediately. Or we can know in advance that a connection is about to  
go down, and want to preemptively route around it before things get  
blackholed before the routers notice.

On very high traffic days, we may make 10+ manual changes to our BGP  
policies to balance outbound and inbound traffic, to keep levels  
under their commits while still utilizing as much of our commit as  
possible. We have automated tools that make slight tweaks every 5  
minutes. How can information that changes this frequently, and  
involves a very large dataset (several full tables of routes) get  
propagated to hundreds/thousands of hosts in a reasonable timeframe?  
Are we reinventing BGP as an IGP to send route data to shim6? :) And  
do we want to blow that much ram keeping a full routing table on each  
server? Even compressed to only list exceptions to a default route,  
my list of exceptions is still huge.


The same problems exist, on a smaller level, on enterprise networks.  
Routing policies can be complex, requiring information that isn't  
currently visible to end hosts, that changes frequently, and can be  
very costly if anyone ignores the policy. Under current BGP-style  
decisions-at-the-edges networking, it's impossible for an end user or  
server to ignore routing policy. With shim6, the end nodes ARE the  
routing policy. There's a lot more to many network's decision making  
process of "how to select the best route" that can't be measured with  
RTT or received TTLs, or anything else the end nodes can see.


Even outside the case of enterprise/hosting environments, transit  
providers already send route preference data to their customers. As a  
transit provider I'm able to depref/prepend/tag/etc routes to  
customers that we'd rather they not use (but are free to ignore).  
Under shim6, it's not really possible for your upstreams to tell you  
"My connection to this network is degraded at the moment, use it only  
as a last resort", where as with BGP they can prepend those routes a  
dozen times or flag it with a community and you won't use it unless  
you have to. Under host-based routing, all end nodes have to be made  
aware of this information.

Something like shim6 works great for small or medium businesses where  
they don't care about this sort of thing, their routing policies only  
change when they add/drop a provider, and they don't have thousands  
of customers with root access on their boxes trying to game the  
system. I just don't think it's a solution for everyone.






More information about the NANOG mailing list