Achieving Fast BGP Reroute with Traffic Engineering Using Multiple Routing Planes

  • Yu Guo
  • Ning Wang
  • Kin-Hon Ho
  • Michael Howarth
  • George Pavlou
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5275)


In today’s BGP routing architecture, traffic delivery is in general based on single path selection paradigms. The lack of path diversity hinders the support for resilience, traffic engineering and QoS provisioning across the Internet. Some recently proposed multi-plane extensions to BGP offer a promising mechanism to enable diverse inter-domain routes towards destination prefixes. Based on these enhanced BGP protocols, we propose in this paper a novel technique to enable controlled fast egress router switching for handling network failures. In order to minimize the disruptions to real-time services caused by the failures, backup egress routers can be immediately activated through locally remarking affected traffic towards alternative routing planes without waiting for IGP routing re-convergence. According to our evaluation results, the proposed multi-plane based egress router selection algorithm is able to provide both high path diversity and balanced load distribution across inter-domain links with a small number of planes.


Greedy Heuristic Bandwidth Utilization Path Diversity Border Router Ingress Router 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Awduche, D., et al.: Overview and Principles Of Internet Traffic Engineering, Request for Comments 3272, Network Working Group (May 2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bressoud, T.C., et al.: Optimal Configuration for BGP Route Selection. In: IEEE INFOCOM (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonaventure, O.: Achieving Sub-50 Milliseconds Recovery upon BGP Peering Link Failures. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 15(5) (October 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kvalbein, A., et al.: Fast IP Network Recovery using Multiple Routing Configurations. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shand, M., et al.: IP Fast Reroute with Notvia Addresses, IETF Internet draft, work in progress (February 2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atlas, A.: Basic Specification for IP Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates., IETF Internet draft, work in progress (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teixeira, R., et al.: Network Sensitivity to Hot-Potato Disruptions. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 231–244 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quoitin, B., et al.: Interdomain traffic engineering with BGP. IEEE Communications Magazine 41(5), 122–128 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amin, M., et al.: Making Outbound Route Selection Robust to Egress Point Failure. In: Proc. IFIP Networking (May 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Psenak, P., et al.: Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF, RFC 4915 (June 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Przygienda, T., et al.: M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS. RFC 5120 (February 2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grffin, D., et al.: Inter-domain Routing through Quality of Service Class Planes. IEEE Communications 45(2), 88–95 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feamster, N., et al.: Path Splicing with Network Slicing. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM HotNets (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motiwala, M., et al.: Path Splicing. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, J., et al.: Edge Based Traffic Engineering for OSPF Networks. Computer Networks 48(4), 605–625 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Menth, M., et al.: Network Resilience through Multi-Topology Routing. In: Proc. IEEE DRCN 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu, W., et al.: MIRO: Multi-path Inter-domain Routing. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    The GÉANT Network,
  20. 20.
    Feamster, N., et al.: Guidelines for inter-domain traffic engineering. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review (fall 2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han, J., et al.: An Experimental Study of Internet Path Diversity. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 3(4) (October 2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iannaccone, G., et al.: Analysis of Link Failures in a Large IP Backbone. In: Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Workshop (IMW) (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Guo
    • 1
  • Ning Wang
    • 1
  • Kin-Hon Ho
    • 1
  • Michael Howarth
    • 1
  • George Pavlou
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Communication Systems ResearchUniversity of SurreyUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Networks and Services Research LabUniversity College London (UCL)United Kingdom

Personalised recommendations