|
Researcher:
|
|
|
Date
completed:
|
|
|
Funding:
|
|
|
Higher-degree:
|
|
|
Papers
published:
|
|
|
Presentations:
|
|
Network
routers filter the network traffic so that the only traffic that
flows into and out of a network is required to go into or out
of the network. In many cases there are several possible routes
that can be taken between two nodes on different networks. To
stop traffic taking a long route or even one that does not exist,
each router must maintain a routing table so that it knows where
the data must be sent when it receives data destined for a remote
node [1].
For routers to find the best way they must communicate
with their neighbours to find the best way through the network.
This measure can be defined in a number of ways:
-
Router hops. This defines the number of router hops
to the remote node, where each router communicates with its
neighbours and uses this information to build-up a routing
table. Unfortunately, this is not a good measure of the delay
of data transmission as a route with a fewest number of hops
may be congested or may be connected to a slow link.
-
Delay. This is an improved method of routing and involves
transmitted the expected delay between the host and the router.
Obviously, this is a difficult parameter to determine as traffic
levels can vary over long and short intervals.
-
Reliability. This technique determines the best route
by analysing the reported errors from a given route. The route
with the lowest error probability will then be the most reliable
route. Unfortunately, this is a difficult parameter to measure
as routes vary, over time, in their reliability.
-
Reachability. Many applications, especially WWW-based
applications, are more interested in actually reaching the
remote node and than for other parameters, such as delay and
reliability.
The proposed research will try and overcome these
problems by integrating the most common routing methods with some
from of intelligence. The three main methods for routing are:
-
RIP [2]. In this method each router transmits RIP
packets with their entire routing table every 30-60 seconds.
This information contains the number of router hops and the
number of ticks (in 1/18 second) that it will take for packet
to reach a given destination. Unfortunately, this method tends
to swamp networks with routing information.
-
OSPF [3-5]. The OSPF is an open, non-proprietary standard
which was created by the IEFF (Internet Engineering Task Force),
a task force of the IAB (Internet Advisory Board). It is a
link-state routing protocol and is able to maintain a complete
and more current view of the total internetwork than distance-vector
routing protocols (such as RIP). Link-state routing protocols
have the features:
-
Any information learned about the network is then passed,
using LSPs, to all known routers, and not just neighbouring
routers. Thus all routers have a fuller knowledge of the entire
internetwork than the view of only the immediate neighbours
(as with distance vector routing).
OSPF adds to these features with:
-
Authentication of routing messages using an 8-byte
password. This length is not long enough to stop unauthorised
users from causing damage. Its main purpose is to reduce the
traffic from misconfigured routers. Typically a misconfigured
router will inform the network that it can reach all nodes
with no overhead.
-
Load balancing. OSPF allows multiple routes to the
same place to be assigned the same cost and will cause traffic
to be distributed evenly over those routes.
-
EGP/BGP [3-11]. The two main interdomain routing protocols
in recent history are EGP and BGP. EGP has the disadvantage
that it treats the Internet as a tree-like structure. This
structure, as illustrated in Figure 1(a), is normally made
up of parents and children, with a single backbone. A more
typical topology for the Internet is illustrated in Figure
1(b). BGP overcomes this problem, but it is more complex than
EGP (but not as complex as OSPF).
BGP assumes that the Internet is made up of
an arbitrarily interconnected set of nodes. It then assumes
the Internet connects to a number of AANs (autonomously attached
networks), as illustrated in Figure 2. These may create boundaries
around an organisation, an Internet service provider, and so
on. It then assumes that, once packets are in the AAN, the will
be properly routed. BGP differs from RIP in that it tries to
find any paths through the network. Thus. the main goal is reachability
instead of the number of hops to the destination. So finding
a path which is nearly optimal is a good achievement.
The AAN administrator selects at least one
node to be a BGP speaker and also one or more border gateway.
These gateways simply route packets into and out of the AAN.
Most routing algorithms try to find the quickest way through
the network, but the BGP only sends information on whether it
is reachable and no other metrics.
The BGP update packet also contains information
on routes which cannot be reached (withdrawn routes). The content
of the BGP-4 update packet is:
-
Unfeasible routes length.
-
Withdrawn routes.
-
Total path attribute length.
-
Path attributes.
-
Network layer reachability information.
A major object of the research is to integrate
intelligent methods into the standard routing protocols. This
will involve training a Neural Network to route packets, given
a required optimisation (such as least delay or reachability).
Fuzzy logic may also be applied to define the how the optimisations
are implemented..
 
(a) (b)
Figure 1
(a) Tree-like topology and (b) a network with multiple backbones.

Figure 2 Autonomously
attached networks
REFERENCES
1. Handbook of Data Communications and Networks,
W. Buchanan, Chapman and Hall, 1998. Chapter 36.
2. Advanced Data Communications and Networks,
W. Buchanan, Chapman and Hall, 1997. pp 397-400.
3. RFC1244. OSPF Protocol Analysis. IAB recommendations.
4. RFC1247. OSPF Version 2. IAB recommendations.
5. RFC1253. OSPF Version 2: Management Information
Base. IAB recommendations.
6. RFC827. EGP. IAB recommendations.
7. RFC904. EGP Specification. IAB recommendations.
8. RFC1163. Border Gate Protocol. IAB recommendations.
9. RFC1164. Application of the BGP in the
Internet. IAB recommendations.
10. RFC1267. BGP-3. IAB recommendations.
11. RFC1771. BGP-4. IAB recommendations.
|