Local-IR Feedback on the PRIDE Project

[Daniel Karrenberg <]

Dear RIPE local-IR WG member,

you chairperson has received (:-) the following request. Since this
proposal is very much relevant to the local-ir WG I would appreciate 
your comments however short.

Thank you

Daniel

------- Forwarded Message

Date:     Wed, 26 May 1993 13:28:44 +0200
From:     Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost
To:       RIPE WG Chairpeople wg-chairs@localhost
cc:       RIPE Chairpeople chair@localhost
Subject:  PRIDE Project


As you know the current route server project will end in July this year.
In order to contnue work on the routing registry I have put together the
following project proposal called PRIDE which I will also put in the
RIPE document store shortly. 

Already some national members of RARE have indicated their willingness
to fund part of the project provided that the RARE technical committee
agrees that the project is useful, which I am confident they will do. 

At the same time it is neccessary that the RIPE community discusses this
and comes to a position on it.  Since time is pressing I would
appreciate comments from you personally and your working group no later
than Monday June 7th.  It would be ideal if the chairpersons of the WGs
and the RIPE chair could agree by then that RIPE supports this proposal,
which would give it added weight. 

Note that I regard the proposal text to be finished and I am reluctant
to make drastic changes to this version.  Clarifications and additions
to make it clearer as well as small additions are of course welcome. 

Even more welcome are offers of contributions to the funding, however
small. 

Daniel








                         P R I D E


                    Policy based Routing

            Implementation, Deployment in Europe


                     A Project Proposal




                     Daniel Karrenberg
                      Manager RIPE NCC
                           - 2 -


The Need

In  todays  Internet  environment,  policy   based   routing
technology  providing  routing  of traffic between different
network operators is a  key  technology.   While  tools  are
available  to  apply  routing  policy they are not used in a
coordinated way if used at all.  In a general mesh  topology
applying policy without coordination and prior simulation of
the consequences will eventually  lead  to  an  unmanageable
situation.  This potential problem has been noted in [1] and
several of the references cited therein.

As an immediate measure the GIX (Global  Internet  Exchange)
has  been  proposed  in [2] and a proposal for a GIX routing
implementation has been made in [3].  It is noteworthy  that
the GIX only solves part of the problem: routing consistency
and connectivity at the global  level.   In  order  for  the
Internet  to  cope  with  its  current  growth,  the routing
problem will also need to be  solved  at  the  regional  and
local levels.  The "RS" project (1) has recognised  this  by
spending  significant  resources  on  establishing consensus
within RIPE on  how  routing  policies  are  stored  in  the
European   routing   registry[4].    Once   registered   the
information can be used to ensure proper  operation  of  the
European  part  of  the  Internet.   The  project  is making
significant progress in this area.  The routing registry and
tools  being developed are much more general than those used
and proposed so far for use in the current Internet.  It  is
expected   that   the  architecture  will  eventually  allow
multiple major interconnect points as envisaged in [1].



















_________________________
1) "Implementation of a Route Server for  policy  based
routing  across  the  GIX",  a  joint RARE/RIPE project
currently funded by SURFnet.
                           - 3 -


In order to promote the European routing  registry  and  the
associated technology two key ingredients are needed:


Implementation
     A set of tools for use by local network operators needs
     to  be developed.  The "RS" project deals only with the
     tools needed by the route server itself. While some  of
     these can be adapted there are not sufficient resources
     to properly produce tools for local network  operators.
     These  tools will enable them to use the routing policy
     stored in the routing registry to perform such tasks as
     check  actual  routing against policies defined, ensure
     consistency of policies set by different operators, and
     simulate the effects of policy changes.


DEPloyment
     In  order  to  be  useful  the  routing  registry   and
     associated  tools  need  to  be deployed rapidly by all
     significant network operators in the European Internet.
     This  means  there  is  a  big need for information and
     training of the network operator staff, coordination of
     deployment   and   support   activities.    If   enough
     information and education pressure can be applied there
     is  a  good chance that the technology will be deployed
     outside Europe  as  well.   First  signs  of  this  are
     already   visible   as  the  CIX  (Commercial  Internet
     eXchange) association has announced their intention  to
     deploy  a  route server using the RIPE routing registry
     technology.


The urgent need for these  two  ingredients  motivates  this
project  proposal  and  has suggested the name PRIDE: Policy
based Routing Implementation and Development in Europe.
                           - 4 -


The Results

The tangible results of the project will be the following.

Implementation

In the implementation area of the  project,  tools  will  be
developed, documented and made publicly available for use by
network operators.  A complete list of those tools cannot be
specified  in  advance  since  specific  needs are likely to
evolve during deployment.  Flexibility to meet  those  needs
and  agree  about priorities with the network operators is a
key element to ensure acceptance and thus the success of the
project.

The tools are expected to include:


prcheck        A tool to check the  consistency  of  routing
               policies  stored  in  the  routing  registry.
               This  tool  will  flag  if  two  neighbouring
               network   operators  specify  conflicting  or
               inconsistent  routing  information  exchanges
               with   each  other  and  also  detect  global
               inconsistencies where possible.


prpath         Extract all (AS-)paths between  two  networks
               which  are allowed by routing policy from the
               routing registry.


prconn         Display the connectivity a given network  has
               according  to current policies.  This will of
               course also  be  able  to  find  the  set  of
               networks a given network can not reach.


prtraceroute   A version of  the  existing  traceroute  tool
               which will be able to display whether a route
               in  use  is  allowed  by  policy  and   where
               deviations from policy occur.


The range of implementable  routing  policies  is  currently
limited  by  the  destination  based  routing and forwarding
technology.  There are efforts underway to enable forwarding
decisions  based  on  the  source  of packets as well as the
destination.  The routing registry and tools  will  need  to
both  follow and influence developments of destination based
routing and forwarding in IPv4 as well  as  next  generation
IP.
                           - 5 -


Deployment

This is the key part of  the  project.   Without  widespread
deployment  of  the  routing registry at least in Europe the
results of the "RS" project and the Implementation  part  of
the  PRIDE  project will be academically interesting but not
much more.  The result of this part of the project  is  thus
widespread deployment of the routing registry and associated
tools as possible.

The tangible results will be:


  -  instruction and training  material  about  the  routing
     registry  as  such and the way routing policies need to
     be expressed for registration


  -   delivery  of  the  information  and  training  to  key
     communities in Europe


  -  coordination of the actual deployment of the tools  and
     especially  the registration of routing policies in the
     routing registry


   -   general  presentation  material  about  the   routing
     registry


   -   delivery  of  the  presentation   material   to   key
     communities worldwide


The delivery of training  and  coordination  and  deployment
will  consume  the bulk of the project resources.  It should
be  noted  however  that  the  proposed  resources  are  not
sufficient  for  a  general  support  or help desk function.
This would need significantly more  resources.   Because  we
believe  network  operators  will  invest  here in their own
interest we propose to focus on  targeting  information  and
training  well  and  to provide coordination only.  The RIPE
community will then form the network for mutual  support  as
it has done successfully in the past.
                           - 6 -


The Partners

In order  to  realise  the  goals  of  this  project,  close
cooperation  with as many service providers as possible will
be  necessary.  European  service  providers   are   already
following  and  influencing the developments closely through
RIPE.  Both the amount of input received during  the  design
of the routing registry and the rate at which information is
being registered show this works well.

Worldwide  contacts  with   groups   involved   in   similar
developments are also already established via RIPE, IEPG and
IETF. The close coordination of all parties deploying  route
servers  on  the  GIX and the recent announcement by the CIX
association of their  intention  to  use  the  RIPE  routing
registry technology are good examples of this.

The project will exploit these already existing channels and
be  open  to  new  ways of reaching the service providers in
particular. All service providers will have equal access  to
the  tools,  the routing registry itself and the information
and training materials.
                           - 7 -


The Resources


The resources needed for the PRIDE project are estimated  as
follows:


  -  2 senior engineering staff for 12  months  representing
     24 FTE months.  These will need renumeration equivalent
     to senior network engineer levels including  overheads.
     The estimated cost of this is 84kECU.


  -  The deployment part will necessitate significant travel
     for  delivery  of  the  information  and  training. The
     estimated travel cost is 20kECU.


  -  Professional  document  design  for  the  materials  is
     desirable.   It  is  difficult to estimate the cost for
     this at this point but 10kECU should be sufficient.


  -  Computing resources. Minimally a personal WS  and  some
     storage capacity.  10kECU will be sufficient.


  -  1/3 of  senior  technical  management  for  12  months.
     Technical  management  of  the  current  RS  project is
     provided by the RIPE  NCC.   This  withdraws  resources
     from  NCC  core  activities  which need to be replaced.
     Estimated cost of this is 20kECU.


The total project cost for 12 months is  thus  estimated  at
84+20+10+10+20 = 144kECU.


The above resource levels are purely for the work  specified
and  do  not  include  formal  project management and formal
(non-technical) reporting.


After completion of the project and successful deployment of
the  routing registry, a level of maintenance effort will be
needed for the tools and the routing registry.  This  should
be a structural activity much like the current RIPE NCC core
activities.


In order to start up quickly the implementation part can  be
started first as a sub-project with one engineer.  It should
be  noted  however  that  without  the   deployment   effort
following, this will have only a very limited effect.
                           - 8 -


References


[1]  T. Kalin: "Global Network Interconnect",  Amsterdam,  8
     Jan. 93, EC(92)093v3


[2]   G.Almes,  P.Ford,  P.Lothberg:  "Proposal  for  Global
     Internet  Connectivity",  IEPG  Working  Document, June
     1992


[3]  Tony Bates, Daniel Karrenberg, Peter Lothberg, Bernhard
     Stockman, Marten Terpstra: "Internet Routing In a Multi
     Provider, Multi Path Open Environment", Document  RIPE-
     82, March 1993


[4]  Tony Bates, Jean-Michel Jouanigot,  Daniel  Karrenberg,
     Peter  Lothberg, Marten Terpstra: "Representation of IP
     Routing Policies in the RIPE Database", Document  ripe-
     81, March 1993








------- End of Forwarded Message