Understanding BGP Outbound Route Filtering (BGP ORF)

原創 jessyxu 2018-09-11 06:07
First off let’s talk a little bit about what BGP ORF (Outbound Route Filtering) is designed to do for us, and then we’ll take a look at some implementation examples.
From a customer’s point of view there are typically a limited amount of choices for what routes you can receive from your Service Provider via BGP. Usually the Service provider will give the customer the option of sending them a full table view (currently about 260,000 prefixes), just a default route, or some specific subset of the table such as a default route and the Service Provider’s locally originated prefixes. In other words a BGP Service Provider generally will not implement a complex outbound filtering policy for the customer. Instead, if the customer wants to receive just a subset view of the BGP table, the Customer Edge (CE) router has to filter prefixes inbound as they are received from the upstream Provider Edge (PE) router.
From the SP’s point of view this is the optimal design for administration. They don’t need to worry about change requests constantly coming from the customer about what routes they want to see and what routes they don’t want to see. Likewise from the customer’s point of view this is the optimal administrative design, as they do not need to send change control requests to the provider, and can arbitrarily change their filtering design on the fly. However from a device resource point of view this is not optimal from both the PE and CE routers’ perspective. The SP’s PE router must still send the full BGP table to the customer, even if the CE router filters out 99% of it. Likewise the CE router must still process all of the BGP UPDATE messages, even if the majority of them are ultimately filtered out.
Let’s take this a look at the result of this in the context of the following design:
AS100 — AS200
(PE) -– (CE)
AS 200 has an upstream peering to its Service Provider, AS 100. The BGP table of AS 200 appears as follows:
AS200_CE#show ip bgp
BGP table version is 12, local router ID is 10.0.0.200
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete

   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*> 0.0.0.0          10.0.0.100               0             0 100 i
*> 28.119.16.0/24   10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 28.119.17.0/24   10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 112.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 50 60 i
*> 113.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 50 60 i
*> 114.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 115.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 116.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 117.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 118.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 119.0.0.0        10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
Let’s suppose that from AS 200’s perspective the only routes that they want to receive from AS 100 are the default route plus the networks 28.119.16.0/24 and 28.119.17.0/24. Traditional filtering would dictate that on the CE router a prefix-list would be configured and applied as follows:
router bgp 200
 neighbor 10.0.0.100 remote-as 100
 neighbor 10.0.0.100 prefix-list AS_100_INBOUND in
!
ip prefix-list AS_100_INBOUND seq 5 permit 0.0.0.0/0
ip prefix-list AS_100_INBOUND seq 10 permit 28.119.16.0/24
ip prefix-list AS_100_INBOUND seq 15 permit 28.119.17.0/24
The result of this configuration in AS 200’s BGP table is as follows:
AS200_CE#show ip bgp
BGP table version is 4, local router ID is 10.0.0.200
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete

   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*> 0.0.0.0          10.0.0.100               0             0 100 i
*> 28.119.16.0/24   10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
*> 28.119.17.0/24   10.0.0.100                             0 100 54 i
Although the filtering goal is achieved, efficiency is not. From the below debug output we can see exactly how AS 200’s CE router processes the updates from the upstream PE and makes a decision on what to install:
AS200_CE#debug ip bgp updates
BGP updates debugging is on for address family: IPv4 Unicast
AS200_CE#clear ip bgp 100
%BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.0.0.100 Down User reset
%BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.0.0.100 Up
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, metric 0, path 100
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 0.0.0.0/0
BGP(0): Revise route installing 1 of 1 routes for 0.0.0.0/0 -> 10.0.0.100(main) to main IP table
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, path 100 54
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 115.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 114.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, path 100 54
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 119.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 118.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 117.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 116.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, path 100 54
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 28.119.17.0/24
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 28.119.16.0/24
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, path 100 54 50 60
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 113.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 112.0.0.0/8 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;
BGP(0): Revise route installing 1 of 1 routes for 28.119.16.0/24 -> 10.0.0.100(main) to main IP table
BGP(0): Revise route installing 1 of 1 routes for 28.119.17.0/24 -> 10.0.0.100(main) to main IP table
AS200_CE#
Note that the AS200_CE router generates the log message “DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list;” for every prefix that is filtered. This means that if this were the public BGP table of 260,000+ routes this router would have to process every update message just to discard it. This is where BGP Outbound Route Filtering (ORF) comes in.
Outbound Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4 is currently an IETF draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16.txt) that describes an optimization on how prefix filtering can occur between a Customer Edge (CE) router and a Provider Edge (PE) router that are exchanging IPv4 unicast BGP prefixes. In the design we saw above the upstream PE router sent the full BGP table downstream to the CE router, and filtering was applied inbound on the downstream CE. With BGP ORF the downstream CE router dynamically tells the upstream PE router what routes to filter *outbound*. This means that the downstream CE router will only receive update messages about the prefixes that it wants.
Implementation wise the first step of this feature is for the BGP neighbors to negotiate that they both support the BGP ORF capability. Configuration-wise this looks as follows:
AS100_PE#
router bgp 100
 neighbor 10.0.0.200 remote-as 200
 !
 address-family ipv4
 neighbor 10.0.0.200 capability orf prefix-list receive
 neighbor 204.12.25.254 activate
 exit-address-family

AS200_CE#
router bgp 200
 neighbor 10.0.0.100 remote-as 100
 !
 address-family ipv4
 neighbor 10.0.0.100 capability orf prefix-list send
 neighbor 10.0.0.100 prefix-list AS_100_INBOUND in
 exit-address-family
!
The result of this configuration on AS 200’s CE is the same, however the behind the scenes mechanism by which it is accomplished is different. First, AS100_PE and AS200_CE negotiate the BGP ORF capability during initial BGP peering establishment. The success of this negotiation can be seen as follows.
AS100_PE#show ip bgp neighbors 10.0.0.200 | begin AF-dependant capabilities:
  AF-dependant capabilities:
    Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type (128) Prefix-list:
      Send-mode: received
      Receive-mode: advertised
  Outbound Route Filter (ORF): received (3 entries)
                                 Sent       Rcvd
  Prefix activity:               ----       ----
    Prefixes Current:               2          0
    Prefixes Total:                 2          0
    Implicit Withdraw:              0          0
    Explicit Withdraw:              0          0
    Used as bestpath:             n/a          0
    Used as multipath:            n/a          0

                                   Outbound    Inbound
  Local Policy Denied Prefixes:    --------    -------
    ORF prefix-list:                      8        n/a
    Total:                                8          0
  Number of NLRIs in the update sent: max 4, min 2

*OUTPUT OMITTED*

AS200_CE#show ip bgp neighbors 10.0.0.100 | begin AF-dependant capabilities:
  AF-dependant capabilities:
    Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type (128) Prefix-list:
      Send-mode: advertised
      Receive-mode: received
  Outbound Route Filter (ORF): sent;
  Incoming update prefix filter list is AS_100_INBOUND
                                 Sent       Rcvd
  Prefix activity:               ----       ----
    Prefixes Current:               0          3 (Consumes 156 bytes)
    Prefixes Total:                 0          4
    Implicit Withdraw:              0          1
    Explicit Withdraw:              0          0
    Used as bestpath:             n/a          3
    Used as multipath:            n/a          0

                                   Outbound    Inbound
  Local Policy Denied Prefixes:    --------    -------
    Suppressed duplicate:                 0          1
    Bestpath from this peer:              3        n/a
    Total:                                3          1
  Number of NLRIs in the update sent: max 0, min 0

*OUTPUT OMITTED*
Next, AS 200’s CE router tells AS 100’s PE router which prefixes it wants to receive. The logic of this configuration is that AS 200 is “sending” a prefix-list of what routes it wants, while AS 100 is “receiving” the prefix-list of what the downstream neighbor wants. The reception of the prefix-list by the upstream PE can be verified as follows.
AS100_PE#show ip bgp neighbors 10.0.0.200 received prefix-filter
Address family: IPv4 Unicast
ip prefix-list 10.0.0.200: 3 entries
   seq 5 permit 0.0.0.0/0
   seq 10 permit 28.119.16.0/24
   seq 15 permit 28.119.17.0/24

AS100_PE#show ip prefix-list
Note that AS 100’s PE router received the list from AS 200’s CE, but the prefix-list does not show up locally in the running config. AS 100’s PE router then turns around and uses the prefix-list as an outbound filter towards the downstream CE. This can be verified two ways, by viewing the UPDATE messages on the downstream CE, and by looking at what the upstream PE is sending.
AS100_PE#show ip bgp neighbors 10.0.0.200 advertised-routes
BGP table version is 11, local router ID is 10.0.0.100
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete

Originating default network 0.0.0.0

   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*> 28.119.16.0/24   204.12.25.254            0             0 54 i
*> 28.119.17.0/24   204.12.25.254            0             0 54 i

Total number of prefixes 2
AS100_PE#

AS200_CE#debug ip bgp updates
BGP updates debugging is on for address family: IPv4 Unicast
AS200_CE#clear ip bgp 100
AS200_CE#
BGP(0): no valid path for 0.0.0.0/0
BGP(0): no valid path for 28.119.16.0/24
BGP(0): no valid path for 28.119.17.0/24
%BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.0.0.100 Down User reset
BGP(0): nettable_walker 0.0.0.0/0 no best path
BGP(0): nettable_walker 28.119.16.0/24 no best path
BGP(0): nettable_walker 28.119.17.0/24 no best path
%BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.0.0.100 Up
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, metric 0, path 100
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 0.0.0.0/0
BGP(0): Revise route installing 1 of 1 routes for 0.0.0.0/0 -> 10.0.0.100(main) to main IP table
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, path 100 54
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 28.119.17.0/24
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 28.119.16.0/24
BGP(0): Revise route installing 1 of 1 routes for 28.119.16.0/24 -> 10.0.0.100(main) to main IP table
BGP(0): Revise route installing 1 of 1 routes for 28.119.17.0/24 -> 10.0.0.100(main) to main IP table
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, metric 0, path 100
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 0.0.0.0/0...duplicate ignored
AS200_CE#
Note that the above output is different from the previous debug of AS 200’s CE, because now it does not receive the extra update messages. AS 200 instead now receives only the routes that it has requested of the upstream PE.
If edits of the filter are required the downstream CE can change the prefix-list, and then through the BGP Route Refresh capability, advertise the new prefix-list upstream to the PE to be used as a new downstream filter. Configuration wise this is accomplished as follows.
AS200_CE#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line.  End with CNTL/Z.
AS200_CE(config)#ip prefix-list AS_100_INBOUND permit 114.0.0.0/8
AS200_CE(config)#end
AS200_CE#
%SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
AS200_CE#clear ip bgp 100 in prefix-filter
AS200_CE#
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, path 100 54
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 114.0.0.0/8
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, path 100 54
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 28.119.17.0/24...duplicate ignored
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 28.119.16.0/24...duplicate ignored
BGP(0): Revise route installing 1 of 1 routes for 114.0.0.0/8 -> 10.0.0.100(main) to main IP table
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.0.0.100, origin i, metric 0, path 100
BGP(0): 10.0.0.100 rcvd 0.0.0.0/0...duplicate ignored
AS200_CE#
From the “debug ip bgp updates” output we can now see that the upstream PE added the update 114.0.0.0/8, in addition to the previous three prefixes that were installed. Upstream verification on the PE also indicates this.
AS100_PE#show ip bgp neighbors 10.0.0.200 received prefix-filter
Address family: IPv4 Unicast
ip prefix-list 10.0.0.200: 4 entries
   seq 5 permit 0.0.0.0/0
   seq 10 permit 28.119.16.0/24
   seq 15 permit 28.119.17.0/24
   seq 20 permit 114.0.0.0/8
AS100_PE#show ip bgp neighbors 10.0.0.200 advertised-routes
BGP table version is 11, local router ID is 10.0.0.100
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
              r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete

Originating default network 0.0.0.0

   Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*> 28.119.16.0/24   204.12.25.254            0             0 54 i
*> 28.119.17.0/24   204.12.25.254            0             0 54 i
*> 114.0.0.0        204.12.25.254                          0 54 i

Total number of prefixes 3
AS100_PE#
For more information on this feature:
Outbound Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16.txt
BGP Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filtering
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t11/feature/guide/ft11borf.html
發表評論
所有評論
還沒有人評論，想成為第一個評論的人麼? 請在上方評論欄輸入並且點擊發布.
相關文章

Linux基本操作命令

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:38

444句英語

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37

真實的模擬***綜合實驗

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37

三層交換機的HSRP、vlan、端口聚合

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37

HSRP和二層交換機的端口聚合、vlan

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37

路遇一個“乞討者“

楊木藝 2019-02-24 14:19:35

如果同事暗中傷害你，應該怎麼辦？

這個饅頭有餡 2019-02-24 13:59:08

職場中，抱怨越多的員工，越被領導瞧不起！

這個饅頭有餡 2019-02-24 13:59:08

老程序員被裁，應屆生卻能月薪 1.3 萬？這你能忍？

前端高達 2019-02-24 13:48:04

遇到到處蹭吃卻從不請客吃飯的主怎麼辦？

樑軍年 2019-02-24 13:26:35

高標準機房綜合配線安裝

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:38

IPsec ***實驗

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37

網絡系統集成

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37

CISCO路由AAA的Easy ***

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37

CISCO訪問控制列表 企業網絡管理的必殺技

wbzjacky 2019-02-24 13:12:37