Hot-potato routing explained

In Internet routing between autonomous systems which are interconnected in multiple locations, hot-potato routing is the practice of passing traffic off to another autonomous system as quickly as possible, thus using their network for wide-area transit. Cold-potato routing is the opposite, where the originating autonomous system internally forwards the packet until it is as near to the destination as possible.[1] [2] [3]

Behaviors

Hot-potato routing (or "closest exit routing")[2] is the normal behavior generally employed by most ISPs.[1] Like a hot potato in the hand,[2] the source of the packet tries to hand it off as quickly as possible in order to minimize the burden on its network.[1]

Cold-potato routing (or "best exit routing")[2] on the other hand, requires more work from the source network, but keeps traffic under its control for longer, allowing it to offer a higher end-to-end quality of service to its users.[1] It is prone to misconfiguration as well as poor coordination between two networks, which can result in unnecessarily circuitous paths.[1] NSFNET used cold-potato routing in the 90s.[2]

When a transit network with a hot-potato policy peers with a transit network employing cold-potato routing, traffic ratios between the two networks tend to be symmetric.[2]

Implementation

Routing behavior can be influenced using two BGP "knobs": multi-exit discriminator (MED) and local preference.[1] In hot-potato routing, the MED attached to incoming -learned routes is discarded,[2] and the IGP cost is used instead.[3] In cold-potato routing, MED[2] or BGP communities are used to signal the cost of the route, which influences local preference.[3]

Notes and References

  1. Geographic Properties of Internet Routing . Lakshminarayanan . Subramanian . Venkata N. . Padmanabhan . Randy H. . Katz . 2002-06-10 . USENIX 2002 Annual Technical Conference .
  2. Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol . 4277 . 7.1.1 . MEDs and Potatoes . 5 . McPherson . D. . Patel . K. . January 2006 . . 2023-12-11 . 10.17487/RFC4277 .
  3. Requirements for the Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions . 6198 . A.3 . Routing Decisions . 18 . Decraene . B. . Francois . P. . Pelsser . C. . Ahmad . Z. . Armengol . A.J. Elizondo . Takeda . T. . April 2011 . . 2023-12-12 . 10.17487/RFC6198 .