SDN Internet Router (sir)

Mike Hammett nanog at ics-il.net
Tue Jan 10 21:23:10 UTC 2023


" With plain IP routers?" 


Yes, or, well, relatively plain, depending on the implementation. 


The originally linked project used Arista. 





----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 
To: "Matthew Walster" <matthew at walster.org> 
Cc: "nanog list" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 8:44:59 AM 
Subject: Re: SDN Internet Router (sir) 

Matthew Walster wrote: 

>>> No... It's action based. You can send it a different route, you can 
>>> replicate it, you can drop it, you can mutate it... 
>> 
>> Replication is a poor alternative for multicast. 

> You conveniently ignore things like IDS, port mirroring, things like that. 

Wrong. Instead, you conveniently ignore that such forwarding 
requires a link between an SDN router and a monitoring device 
have the same or larger MTU than an incoming link of the SDN 
router, which means the router and the monitoring device must 
be tightly coupled effectively to be a single device. 

Sometimes, packet loss possibility between them often requires 
they must actually be the same device. 

> No. There are far more actions than for prioritisation. 

Just for fun? I'm afraid I already mentioned so. 

> What if you want to make sure certain classes of traffic do not flow over a 
> link, because it is unencrypted and/or sensitive, but you're happy to send 
> as much TLS wrapped data as you like? 

You are wrongly assuming TLS wrapped packets can be identified 
packet by packet, as I wrote: 

>> Unless pattern is as simple as having certain port number, 
>> stateful filtering almost always needs all packets including 
>> those matching expected pattern, I'm afraid. 

So? 

> What if you want to sample some flows in an ERSPAN like mechanism? 

See above for MTU issues. 

> What if you want to urgently drop a set of flows based on a known DDOS 
> signature? 

Urgently? Even though a DDOS signature is known in advance? 

Why? 

>> Unless pattern is as simple as having certain port number, 
>> stateful filtering almost always needs all packets including 
>> those matching expected pattern, I'm afraid. 
>> 
> 
> Or a certain set of IP addresses. Policy based routing. 

That's even simpler than port number to be treated by 
having or not having proper routing table entries. 

>> If default route is acceptable, just rely on it along with 
>> 50 non default routes with plain IP routers. 

> That's what OP is suggesting. 

With plain IP routers? 

> That's what SIR is. Classifying prefixes by 
> traffic and only keeping the ones with the highest volume of traffic, 
> discarding the rest, relying on the default route to infill. 

Given the connectionless nature of the Internet, route change based 
on volume of traffic averaged over certain period of time is rather 
harmful than useful. 

Masataka Ohta 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230110/90bcdcf9/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list