Network Working Group                                         H.W. Braun
Request for Comments: 1093                                         Merit
                                                          February 1989


                   The NSFNET Routing Architecture

Status of this Memo

  This document describes the routing architecture for the NSFNET
  centered around the new NSFNET Backbone, with specific emphasis on
  the interface between the backbone and its attached networks.
  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Introduction

  This document describes the routing architecture for the NSFNET
  centered around the new NSFNET Backbone, with specific emphasis on
  the interface between the backbone and its attached networks.  It
  reflects and augments thoughts described in [1], discussions during
  the Internet Engineering Task Force meeting at the San Diego
  Supercomputing Center in March 1988, discussions on mailing lists,
  especially on a backbone/regional network working group mailing list,
  and a final discussion held at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in
  Yorktown, NY, on the 21st of March 1988.  The Yorktown meeting was
  attended by Hans-Werner Braun (Merit), Scott Brim (Cornell
  University), Mark Fedor (NYSERNet), Jeff Honig (Cornell University),
  and Jacob Rekhter (IBM).  Thanks also to: Milo Medin (NASA), John Moy
  (Proteon) and Greg Satz (Cisco) for discussing this document by email
  and/or phone.

  Understanding of [1] is highly recommended prior to reading this
  document.

1. Routing Overview

  The new NSFNET backbone forms the core of the overall NSFNET, which
  connects to regional networks (or regional backbones) as well as to
  peer networks (other backbones like the NASA Science Network or the
  ARPANET).  The NSFNET core uses a SPF based internal routing
  protocol, adapted from the IS-IS protocol submitted by ANSI for
  standardization to the ISO.  The ANSI IS-IS protocol is based upon
  work done at Digital Equipment Corporation.  Its adaptation to the
  Internet environment requires additional definitions, most notably to
  the addressing structure, which will be described in a later
  document.  This adaptation was largely done by Jacob Rekhter of IBM
  Research in Yorktown, NY. The RCP/PSP routing architecture was
  largely implemented by Rick Boivie and his colleagues at IBM TCS in



Braun                                                           [Page 1]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


  Milford, CT.  The adaptation of EGP to the NSS routing code and the
  new requirements was done jointly by Jeff Honig (who spent about a
  week to work on this at IBM Research) and Jacob Rekhter.  Jeff is
  integrating the changes done for the new EGP requirements into the
  "gated" distributions.

  The IGP derives routing tables from Internet address information.
  This information is flooded throughout the NSFNET core, and the
  individual NSS nodes create or update their routing information after
  running the SPF algorithm over the flooded information.  A detailed
  description of the NSFNET backbone IGP will be documented in a future
  document.

  The routing interface between the NSFNET core and regional backbones
  as well as peer networks utilizes the Exterior Gateway Protocol
  (EGP).  The EGP/IGP consistency and integrity at the interface points
  is ensured by filtering mechanisms according to individual nodal
  routing policy data bases [1].  EGP is selected as the routing
  interface of choice between the NSFNET backbone and its regional
  attachments due to its widespread implementation as well its ability
  to utilize autonomous system designators and to allow for effective
  firewalls between systems.  In the longer run the hope is to replace
  the EGP interface with a new inter Autonomous System protocol. Such a
  new protocol should also allow to move the filtering of network
  numbers or Autonomous Network number groups to the regional gateways
  in order for the regional gateways to decide as to what routing
  information they wish to receive.

  A general model is to ensure consistent routing information between
  peer networks.  This means that, e.g., the NSFNET core will have the
  same sets of Internet network numbers in its routing tables as are
  present in the ARPANET core.  However, the redistribution of this
  routing information is tightly controlled and based on Autonomous
  System numbers.  For example, ARPANET routes with the ARPANET
  Autonomous System number will not be redistributed into regional or
  other peer networks.  If an NSFNET internal path exists to such a
  network known to the ARPANET it may be redistributed into regional
  networks, subject to further policy verification. Generally it may be
  necessary to have different trust models for peer and subordinate
  networks, while giving a greater level of trust to peer networks.

  The described use of EGP, which is further elaborated on in [1]
  requires bidirectional translation of network information between the
  IGP in use and EGP.

2. Conclusions reached during the discussions

  The following conclusions were reached during the meeting and in



Braun                                                           [Page 2]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


  subsequent discussions:

     No DDN-only routes (ARPANET/MILNET) shall be announced into the
     regional backbones.  This is a specific case of the ability to
     suppress information from specific Autonomous Systems, as
     described later.

     Regional backbones are required to use an unique Autonomous System
     number.  Announcements from non-sanctioned autonomous systems,
     relative to a particular site, will not be believed and will
     instead trigger an alarm to the Network Operations Center.

     Regional backbone attachments must not require routes to local
     subnets.  This means that the locally attached network needs to
     use a flat space, without subnet bits, at least from the NSS point
     of view.  The reason for this is that the EGP information
     exchanged between the regional gateway and the NSS cannot include
     subnet information. Therefore the NSS has no knowledge of remote
     subnets.  The safest way to get around this limitation is to use a
     non-subnetted network (like a separate Class-C network) at the
     interface between a regional backbone and the NSFNET backbone.
     The other way is to use Proxy-ARP while having just the NSS think
     that the network is not subnetted. In the latter case care must be
     taken so that the E-PSP uses the proper local IP broadcast
     address.

     Routing information received by the NSS from regional gateways
     will be verified on both network number and autonomous system
     number.

     Metric reconstitution is done on a per-network basis.  The NSS
     will construct the fixed metric it will use for a given network
     number from its internal data base.  Network metrics given to the
     NSS via EGP will be ignored.  The metrics used are a result of an
     ordered list of preferred paths as supplied by the regional
     backbones and the attached campuses.  This metric is of relevance
     only to the NSFNET core itself.  The mechanisms are further
     explained in [1].

     Global metric reconstitution by Autonomous System numbers is
     necessary in specific cases, such as peer networks.  An example is
     that ARPANET routes will be reconstituted to a global metric, as
     determined by the NSS.

     EGP announcements into regional networks will use a fixed metric.
     The metric used shall be "128."  The 128-metric is somewhat
     arbitrarily chosen to be high enough so that a regional backbone
     will get a metric high enough from the NSFNET Core AS to allow a



Braun                                                           [Page 3]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


     comparison against other (most likely internal) routes. "128" is
     also consistent with [2].

     Peer network routes (e.g., ARPANET routes) are propagated through
     the NSS structure.

     No DEFAULT routing information is distributed within the NSFNET
     backbone, as the NSFNET core has the combined routing knowledge of
     the attached regional and peer networks.

     We do not expect the requirement for damping of routing update
     frequencies, at least initially.  The frequency of net up/down
     changes combined with the available bandwidth and CPU capacity do
     not let the frequency of SPF floodings appear as being a major
     problem.  Simple metric changes as heard by a NSS via EGP will not
     trigger updates.

     An allowed list of Source Autonomous System information will be
     used to convert from the IGP to EGP, on a Destination Autonomous
     System number basis, to allow for specific exclusion of definable
     remote Autonomous System information.

     EGP must only announce networks for which the preferred path is
     via the IGP.  This means in particular that the EGP peer will
     never announce via EGP what it learned via EGP on the same
     interface, not even if the information was received from a third
     EGP peer.  This will avoid the back-distribution of information
     learned via that same interface.  The EGP peers of regional
     gateways must only announce information belonging to their own
     Autonomous System.

     EGP will be used in interior mode only.

     The regional backbones are responsible for generating DEFAULT
     routing information at their option.  One possibility is to
     generate an IGP default on a peer base as long as the NSS EGP
     connection is working.  The EGP information will not include a
     special indication for DEFAULT.

     It is highly desirable to have direct peer-peer connections, to
     ease the implementation of a consistent routing data base.

     A single Autonomous System number may not be used with two E-PSPs
     at the same time as long as the two E-PSP's belong to the same
     NSS.  Otherwise the same Autonomous System number can be used from
     multiple points of attachment to the backbone and therefore can
     talk to more than one E-PSP.  However, this may result in
     suboptimal routing unless multiple announcements are properly



Braun                                                           [Page 4]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


     engineered according to [1].

     The administrator of the regional networks should be warned that
     improper routing implementations within the region may create
     suboptimal regional routing by using this restriction if no care
     is taken in that:

        Only networks belonging to their own Autonomous System get
        preferred over NSFNET backbone paths; this may extend to a
        larger virtual Autonomous System if backdoor paths are
        effectively implemented.

        IGP implementations should not echo back routing information
        heard via the same path.

        If two regional networks decide to implement a backdoor
        connection between themselves, then the backdoor must have a
        firewall in so that information about their own Autonomous
        System cannot flow in from the other Autonomous System.  That
        is, a regional network must not allow information about
        networks that are interior to its Autonomous System to enter
        via exterior routes.  Likewise, if a regional network is
        connected to the NSFNET via two NSS connections, the NSS cannot
        send back information about the Autonomous System into the
        Autonomous System where it originated.  The end effect is that
        partitions within an Autonomous System will not be healed by
        using the NSS system.  In addition, if three or more regionals
        connect to each other via multiple back-door paths, it is
        imperative that all back-door paths have firewalls that ensure
        that the above restrictions are imposed.  These actions are
        necessary to prevent routing loops that involve the NSS system.
        Furthermore routing information should only be accepted from
        another regional backbone via backdoor paths for networks which
        are positively desired to be reached via this same backdoor
        path.

3. EGP requirements for attached gateways

  The following EGP requirements are necessary for attached gateways;
  they may require changes in existing vendor products:

     IGP to EGP routing exchanges need to be bidirectional.  This
     feature should be selectable by the gateway administrator, and by
     default be configured OFF.

     The metric used when translating from EGP to IGP should be
     configurable.




Braun                                                           [Page 5]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


     It must be possible for IGP information to override EGP
     information, so that the internal paths are preferred over
     external paths.  Overriding EGP information on an absolute basis,
     where an external path would never be used as long as there is an
     internal one, is acceptable.

     The ability to do route filtering in the regional gateways on a
     per net basis is highly desirable to allow the regional gateways
     to do a further selection as to what routes they would want to
     redistribute into their network.

     The existence of an EGP connection should optionally lead to the
     generation of a DEFAULT announcement for propagation via the IGP.
     The DEFAULT metric should be independently configurable.

     EGP routes with a metric of "128" should be acceptable.  In most
     cases the regional backbone should ignore the EGP metric.

     The regional gateways must only announce networks known to their
     own Autonomous System.  At the very least they must not
     redistribute routing information via EGP for routes previously
     learned via EGP.

     It would be beneficial if the regional IGPs would tag routes as
     being EGP derived.

     If the EGP peer (e.g., a NSS) terminates the EGP exchange the
     previously learned routes should expire in a timely fashion.

4. References

  [1]  Rekhter, J., "EGP and Policy Based Routing in the New NSFNET
       Backbone", T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corporation, March
       1988.  Also as RFC 1092, February 1989.

  [2]  Mills, D., "Autonomous Confederations", RFC 975, M/A-COM
       Linkabit, February 1986.

  [3]  Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Formal Specification", RFC 904,
       M/A-COM Linkabit, April 1984.

  [4] "Exterior Gateway Protocol, Version 3, Revisions and Extensions,"
       Working Notes of the IETF WG on EGP, Marianne L. Gardner and
       Mike Karels, February 1988.

  [5]  "Management and Operation of the NSFNET Backbone Network,"
       proposal to the National Science Foundation, Merit Computer
       Network, August 1987.



Braun                                                           [Page 6]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


5. Appendix

  The following are extensions implemented for the "gated" EGP
  implementation, as designed by Jeff Honig of the Cornell University
  Theory Center.  These extensions are still in the design stage and
  may be changed over time.  They are included here as an
  implementation example.

  Changes to egpneighbor clause:

  egpneighbor <address>   metricin <metric>
                          egpmetricout <egpmetric>
                          ASin <as>
                          ASout <as>
                          nogendefault
                          acceptdefault
                          defaultout <egpmetric>
                          validate

  metricin <metric>

       If specified, the metric of all nets received from this
       neighbor are set to <metric>.

  egpmetricout <egpmetric>

       If specified, the metric of all nets sent to this neighbor,
       except default, are set to <egpmetric>.

  ASin <as>

       If specified, EGP packets received from this neighbor must
       specify this AS number of an EGP error packet is generated.
       The AS number is only checked at neighbor acquisition time.

  ASout <as>

       If specified, this AS number is used on all EGP packets sent
       to thiqs neighbor

  nogendefault

       If specified, this neighbor is not considered when
       generating a gateway default.

  acceptdefault

       If specified, the default will be accepted from this



Braun                                                           [Page 7]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


       neighbor, otherwise it will be explicitly ignored.

  defaultout <egpmetric>

       If specified, the internally generated default is send to
       this neighbor in EGP updates.  Default learned from other
       gateways is not propogated.

  validate

       If specifed, all nets learned from this EGP neighbor must
       have a corresponding 'validAS' clause or they will be
       ignored.

  Addition of a validAS clause:

  validAS <net> AS <as> metric <metric>

     This clause specifies which AS a network may be learned from and
     what internal metric to use when the net is learned.  The
     specifies the 'validate' option.  Note that more than one may be
     learned from more than one AS.

  Addition of sendAS and donotsendAS clauses:

     These clauses control the announcement of exterior (currently only
     EGP) routes.  Normally, exterior routes are not considered for
     announcement.  When the 'sendAS' or 'donotsendAS' clauses are
     used, the announce/donotannounce, egpnetsreachable and other
     restrictions still apply.  The 'sendAS' and 'donotsendAS' clauses
     are mutually exclusive by autonomous system.

  sendAS <as0> ASlist <as1> <as2> ...

     This clause specifies that only nets learned from as1, as2, ...
     may be propogated to as0.

  donotsendAS <as0> ASlist <as1> <as2> ...

     This clause specifies that nets learned from as1, as2, ...  may
     not be propogated to <as0>, all other nets are propogated.

  An example of a "/etc/gated.conf" file could include the following:

  #
  RIP supplier
  #
  autonomousystem (regional AS)



Braun                                                           [Page 8]

RFC 1093              NSFNET Routing Architecture          February 1989


  #
  egpneighbor (NSS address) ASin (NSS AS) nogendefault
  metricin (metric)
  #
  sendAS (NSS AS) ASlist (regional AS)
  #

  Where:

       Regional AS   Is the AS number of the regional network
       NSS address   Is the IP address of the local NSS
       NSS AS        Is the AS number the NSFNET backbone
       Metric        Is the gated internal (time delay) metric that
                     EGP learned routes should have.  This is the
                     metric used on output after conversion to a RIP
                     metric.  Some values are:

                                  HELLO   RIP
                                  100     1
                                  148     2
                                  219     3
                                  325     4
                                  481     5

Author's Address:

  Hans-Werner Braun
  University of Michigan
  Computing Center
  1075 Beal Avenue
  Ann Arbor, MI 48109

  Phone: (313) 763-4897

  Email: [email protected]
















Braun                                                           [Page 9]