Which Routing Protocol?

-IPv4 and IPv6 PerspectiveCiprian Popoviciu

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Public

Is one protocol better than the others? Which routing protocol should I use in my network? Should I switch from the one Im using? Do the same selection rules apply to IPv4 and IPv6? How will my IPv4 and IPv6 routing protocols coexist?

IPv4 Ends Merge RST-3210 IPv6

11048_05_2005_X2 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.All rights reserved. 2005 Cisco Systems, Inc. Presentation_ID Cisco Confidential 2 2

The Questions
Is one routing protocol better than any other protocol? Define Better! Converges faster? Uses less resources? Easier to troubleshoot? Easier to configure? Scales to a larger number of routers, routes, or neighbors?

More flexible?
Degrades more gracefully?

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

The Questions
The answer is yes if:
The network is complex enough to bring out a protocols specific advantages You can define a specific feature (or set of features) that will benefit your network tremendously

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

The Questions
But, then again, the answer is no! Every protocol has some features and not others, different scaling properties, etc. Lets consider some specific topics for each protocol....

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Before That The Twist!

Most likely the IPv6 IGP will not be deployed in a brand new network and just by itself Most likely the existing IPv4 services are more important at first since they are generating most of the revenue What is the impact on the convergence of IPv4? How are the resources shared between the two protocols? Are the topologies going to be congruent? How easy is it to manage parallel IPv4 / IPv6 environments? Opportunity to adapt a new IGP?

Redefine Better!

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Which Routing Protocol

IPv4 and IPv6 IGPs Convergence Speed Design and Topology Considerations Summary

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

IPv4 and IPv6 IGPs

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

IPv6 Is an Evolutionary Not a Revolutionary Step and this is very clear in the case of routing which saw minor changes even though most of the Routing Protocols were completely rebuilt.

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 2008

Cisco Cisco Public Confidential

The IPv4 IPv6 Parallel

RIP
RIPv2 for IPv4 RIPng for IPv6 Distinct but similar protocols with RIPng taking advantage of IPv6 specificities OSPFv2 for IPv4 OSPFv3 for IPv6 Distinct but similar protocols with OSPFv3 being a cleaner implementation that takes advantage of IPv6 specificities Extended to support IPv6 Natural fit to some of the IPv6 foundational concepts Supports Single and Multi Topology operation

OSPF

IS-IS EIGRP

Extended to support IPv6 Some changes reflecting IPv6 characteristics

For all intents and purposes, the IPv6 IGPs are very similar to their IPv4 counterparts IPv6 IGPs have additional features that could lead to new designs
Presentation_ID 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

10

The Version Agnostic Perspective

The similarities between the IPv4 and IPv6 IGP lead to similar network design considerations as far as routing is concerned

The implementation of the IPv6 IGPs achieves parity with the IPv4 counterparts in most aspects but this is an ongoing development and optimization process Coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6 IGPs is a very important design consideration.

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

11

Convergence Speed

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

12

Convergence Speed
Equal Cost Convergence Link State Convergence EIGRP Convergence Convergence Summary

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

13

Convergence Speed
Which protocol converges faster? IS-IS vs OSPF vs EIGRP
IS-IS and OSPF have the same characteristics, from a high level, so well consider them both as link state Is DUAL faster, or Dijkstra?

Rules of Thumb
The more routers involved in convergence, the slower convergence will be The more routes involved in convergence, the slower convergence will be

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

14

Convergence Speed
Five steps to convergence
1. Detect the failure 2. Flood the failure information 3. Calculate new routes around the topology change 4. Add changed routing information to the routing table (RIB) 5. Update the FIB (possibly distributed)

Steps 1-4-5 are similar for any routing protocol, so well only look at step 2-3

But, its important to keep them in mind, since they often impact convergence more than the routing protocol does
Presentation_ID 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

15

Equal Cost
Start with B>C>E and B>D>E being equal cost If C fails, B and E can shift from sharing traffic between C and D to sending traffic to D only Number of routers involved in convergence: 2 (B and E)
A

Convergence time is in the milliseconds

E

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

16

Link State
Within a single flooding domain
A single area in OSPF A single flooding domain in IS-IS

Convergence time depends on flooding timers, SPF timers, and number of nodes/leafs in the SPF tree What happens when we cross a flooding domain boundary?

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

17

Link State
Between flooding domains, link state protocols have distance vector characteristics This can have negative or positive impacts on convergence time in a large network
Reduces tree size Allows partial SPFs, rather than full SPFs Introduces translation and processing at the flooding domain boundaries

The impact is primarily dependant on the network design

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

18

Link State Convergence Data

Tuned IPv4 OSPF, Untuned IPv6 OSPF

Convergence time with default timers and tuned timers

Time

2.500 2.000 IPv4 OSPF 1.500 IPv6 OSPF 1.000 0.500 0.000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of Prefixes Linear (IPv4 OSPF) Linear (IPv6 OSPF)

IPv4 and IPv6 IGP convergence times are similar - The IPv6 IGP implementations
might not be fully optimized yet - Not all Fast Convergence optimizations might be available
Tuned IPv4 ISIS, Tuned IPv6 ISIS
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 IPv4 ISIS 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of Prefixes

Tuned IPv4 OSPF, Tuned IPv6 OSPF

0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of Prefixes

IPv4 OSPF IPv6 OSPF Linear (IPv6 OSPF) Linear (IPv4 OSPF)

IPv6 ISIS Linear (IPv6 ISIS) Linear (IPv4 ISIS)

Time

Time

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

19

Link State
Within a flooding domain
The average convergence time, with default timers, is going to be in the order of seconds

With fast timers, the convergence time can be in the 100s of milliseconds
Note: There are operational 200 node IS-IS and OSPF networks with 500 millisecond convergence times

Outside the flooding domain

Network design and route aggregation are the primary determining factors of convergence speed

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

20

EIGRP
For paths with feasible successors, convergence time is in the milliseconds
The existence of feasible successors is dependant on the network design

For paths without feasible successors, convergence time is dependant on the number of routers that have to handle and reply to the query
Queries are blocked one hop beyond aggregation and route filters Query range is dependant on network design

Good design is the key to fast convergence in an EIGRP network

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

21

Convergence Summary
IS-IS with default timers OSPF with default timers EIGRP without feasible successors OSPF with tuned timers IS-IS with tuned timers
IPv4 IGP Convergence Data

6000 5000 4000 3000

EIGRP with feasible successors

A

2000
1000 Route Generator 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
22

D
Presentation_ID 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

Milliseconds

7000

Routes

Convergence Summary
Its possible to converge in under one second using any protocol, with the right network design Rules of Thumb:
More aggregation leads to better performance for EIGRP
Less aggregation leads to better performance for link state protocols

If youre going to use link state protocols, tune the timers; but if you tune the timers, be careful with HA features, like GR/NSF

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

23

The Coexistence Twist

Tuned IPv4 OSPF, Untuned IPv6 OSPF

IPv6 IGP impact on the IPv4 IGP convergence Aggressive timers on both IGPs will highlight competition for resources Is parity necessary from day 1?
Tuned IPv4 ISIS, Tuned IPv6 ISIS
0.6 0.5 0.4
Time
Time

0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of Prefixes

IPv4 OSPF IPv4 OSPF w/ IPv6 OSPF Linear (IPv4 OSPF w/ IPv6 OSPF) Linear (IPv4 OSPF)

Tuned IPv4 OSPF, Tuned IPv6 OSPF

0.7 0.6
IPv4 ISIS
Time

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of Prefixes

IPv4 OSPF IPv4 OSPF w/ IPv6 OSPF Linear (IPv4 OSPF w/ IPv6 OSPF) Linear (IPv4 OSPF)

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of Prefixes

IPv4 ISIS w/ IPv6 ISIS Linear (IPv4 ISIS w/ IPv6 ISIS) Linear (IPv4 ISIS)

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

24

Design and Topology Considerations

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

25

Topology
Hub and Spoke Full Mesh Support for Hierarchy Topology Summary

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

26

Hub and Spoke Summary

Scaling Issues
No effective means to control distribution of routing information
Care must be taken to prevent transiting traffic through remote sites Care must be taken with summary black holes

Link State EIGRP

All remote sites receive all other remote site link state information; moderate scaling capability
Stub remote routers with filtering and aggregation; excellent scaling capability

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

27

Hub and Spoke

In the field, we see up to 650 dual homed remotes with EIGRP, and up to about 250 with OSPF Tested initial convergence and hard failover times
600 dual homed remote sites
Seconds
12 10 8

EIGRP

EIGRP

OSPF

6 4 2 0

For hard failover, primary hub was powered down

Testing is still ongoing in this area

Initial

Failover

600 remotes

OSPF

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

28

Full Mesh
OSPF IS-IS EIGRP
Use ip ospf database-filter all out to Manually Designate Flooding Points and Increase Scaling Through a Full Mesh Use isis mesh-group or isis mesh-group blocked to Manually Designate Flooding Points and Increase Scaling Through a Full Mesh Summarize into and out of the Full Mesh
Summarize

Summarize

Summarize

Summarize

Summarize Summarize
29

New Information
Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Hierarchical Division Points

Hard flooding domain, summarization, and filter border; area borders need to be considered when designing or modifying the network

OSPF

IS-IS

Softer flooding domain, summarization, and filtering border; L2 overlaps L1 domains, providing some flexibility; network design needs to consider flooding domain border

EIGRP

Summarization and filtering where configured, no hard or soft borders other than what the network dictates (But this doesnt imply the network doesnt need to be designed!)

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

30

Topology Summary
Rules of Thumb
EIGRP performs better in large scale hub and spoke environments

Link state protocols perform better in full mesh environments, if tuned correctly
EIGRP tends to perform better in strongly hierarchical network models, link state protocols in flatter networks

Note: With IPv6 a great deal of emphasis is placed on hierarchical addressing schemes. In certain environments, EIGRP becomes a good option to support such designs.

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

31

The Coexistence Twist

Multi Process/Topo

Single Process/Topo*

Clear separation of the two control planes

Requires less resources Might provide a more deterministic coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6

Non-congruent topologies are very common if not desired in deployments

*Today most IPv6 IGPs are distinct from their IPv4 counterparts and will run as ships in the night. The only exception is ISIS.
Presentation_ID 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

32

Protocol Evolution

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

33

OSPF Future Developments

Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Fast Reroute
Current work in the IETF draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses and others

Multitopology Routing
draft-ietf-ospf-mt

Address Families
To support IPv4 and IPv6 in OSPFv3 draft-ietf-ospfv3-af-alt and others

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

34

IS-IS Future Developments

Fast Reroute
Current work in the IETF draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses and others

Multitopology Routing
draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology

Administrative Tags
draft-ietf-isis-admin-tags

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

35

EIGRP Future Developments

Improved EIGRP hub-and-spoke scaling for DMVP
Significant scaling improvement IPv4 and IPv6 support

Based on EIGRP technology: Service Advertisement Framework (SAF)

Service advertisement / discovery solution based on EIGRP technology Does not require EIGRP as an underlying routing protocol (can be OSPF)

Natively supports both IPv4 and IPv6

First use will be UC Call Agent Discovery

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

36

Summary

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

37

Is one protocol better than the others? Which routing protocol should I use in my network? Should I switch from the one Im using? Do the same selection rules apply to IPv4 and IPv6? How will my IPv4 and IPv6 routing protocols coexist?
Did we answer this question???

IPv4 Ends Merge RST-3210 IPv6

11048_05_2005_X2 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.All rights reserved. 2005 Cisco Systems, Inc. Presentation_ID Cisco Confidential 38 38

Summary
There is no right answer! Consider:
Your business requirements Your network design The coexistence between IPv4 and IPv6

Intangibles

The three advanced IGPs are generally pretty close in capabilities, development, and other factors

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

39

Expertise (Intangible)
What is your team comfortable with? What escalation resources and other support avenues are available? But remember, this isnt a popularity contestyou dont buy your car based on the number of a given model sold, do you? An alternate way to look at it: what protocol would you like to learn?

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

40

Standardization (Intangible)
Whos standard?
OSPF: Standardized by the IETF IS-IS: Standardized by the ISO and the IETF EIGRP: Cisco Standard!

Standardization is a tradeoff:
Promises Interoperability
Larger number of eyes looking at problems and finding new features

Politics often influence standards and causes compromises

New features are often difficult to push through standards committees, slowing their release
Presentation_ID 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

41

IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
Memory (bytes)

Targeting parity is natural but consider the tradeoffs during the early phases of integration IPv4 and IPv6 can be decoupled offering a unique opportunity to try a new design with IPv6. Look at both congruent and noncongruent topology approaches Evaluate the additional resources required by IPv6 Take advantage of the IPv6 addressing resources!

450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of Routes Linear (IPv6) Linear (IPv4) IPv4 IPv6

show route afi-all summary IPv4 Unicast: --------------Route Source connected local local SMIAP static ospf 200 Total IPv6 Unicast: --------------Route Source connected local ospf 200 Total

Routes 5 6 1 0 3770 3782

Backup 1 0 0 0 1 2

Deleted 0 0 0 0 0 0

Memory (bytes) 720 720 120 0 452520 454080

Routes 3 4 3769 3776

Backup 1 0 1 2

Deleted 0 0 0 0

Memory (bytes) 592 592 557960 559144

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

42

Summary
IP Version Agnostic Rules of Thumb
Mesh Hub and Spoke

Link State

Flat

Hierarchy

EIGRP
Flat Aggregated

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

43

Recommended Reading
BRKIPM-3301

Source: Cisco Press

Presentation_ID 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

44

Presentation_ID

2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

45