Updated BGP Operations and Security
draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tobias Fiebig , Nick Hilliard | ||
| Last updated | 2025-04-15 | ||
| Replaces | draft-fiebig-grow-bgpopsecupd | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
RTGDIR Early review
by Linda Dunbar
Not ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-08
Global Routing Operations T. Fiebig
Internet-Draft MPI-INF
Obsoletes: 7454 (if approved) N. Hilliard
Intended status: Best Current Practice INEX
Expires: 17 October 2025 15 April 2025
Updated BGP Operations and Security
draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd-08
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is a critical component in the
Internet to exchange routing information between network domains.
Due to this central nature, it is important to understand the
security and reliability requirements that can and should be ensured
to prevent accidental or intentional routing disturbances.
Previously, security considerations for BGP have been described in
RFC7454 / BCP194. Since the publications of RFC7454 / BCP194,
several developments and changes in operational practice took place
that warrant an update of these best current practices. This
document replaces RFC7454 / BCP194, focusing on the overall goals,
and providing a less implementation centric set of best practices.
To this end, the document describes the security requirements and
goals when operating BGP for exchanging routing information with
other networks. The document explicitly does not focus on specific
technical implementations and requirements. Operators are advised to
consult documentation and contemporary informational documents
concerning methods to ensure that these properties are sufficiently
ensured in their network.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP OPSEC April 2025
This Internet-Draft will expire on 17 October 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protection of the BGP Speaker and Session . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. BGP Session Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. BGP Speaker Management Interface Protection . . . . . . . 4
4. NLRI Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Importing NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Originating and Redistributing NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Altering NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), specified in [RFC4271], is the
protocol used in the Internet to exchange routing information between
network domains. BGP does not directly include mechanisms that
control whether the routes exchanged conform to the various
guidelines defined by the Internet community. Furthermore, the BGP
protocol itself, by its design, does not have any direct way to
protect itself against threats to confidentiality, integrity, and
availability. This document summarizes security properties and
requirements when operating BGP for securing the infrastructure as
well as for security considerations regarding the exchanged routing
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP OPSEC April 2025
information.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Scope of the Document
The guidelines defined in this document are intended for BGP when
used to exchange generic Internet routing information within the DFZ.
It specifically does not cover other uses of BGP, e.g., when using
BGP for NLRI exchange in a data-center context. This document does
not specify how the outlined requirements and properties can be
technically realized at a specific point in time. Instead, operators
are advised to consult applicable documentation and contemporary
informational documents describing implementation specifics.
3. Protection of the BGP Speaker and Session
The BGP speaker, i.e., the host running BGP to exchange routing
information, needs to be protected from external attempts to taint
integrity or availability of the BGP session and host alike.
3.1. BGP Session Protection
To protect a BGP speaker on the network layer, an operator MUST
ensure the following properties using technical or organizational
measures:
* Prevent off-path attackers from injecting BGP messages into
existing sessions.
* Prevent off-path attackers from interrupting existing sessions.
* Prevent off-path attackers from preventing the establishment of
new sessions.
* Prevent remote systems from overwhelming the BGP speaker by
sending large volumes of unsolicited packets or BGP messages.
* Ensure that unstable sessions do not threaten the availability of
BGP speakers within the network.
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP OPSEC April 2025
3.2. BGP Speaker Management Interface Protection
In addition to the control plane / exchange of BGP protocol messages,
the management plane of BGP speakers must be appropriately secured.
Hence, operators MUST ensure that:
* No unauthorized third-parties can obtain access or connect to the
management interface of a BGP speaker in a way that allows
tainting confidentiality, integrity, or availability.
* External activity towards the management interface do not
interfere with the integrity or availability of BGP sessions.
4. NLRI Filtering
The purpose of BGP is exchanging routing information, i.e., NLRI.
Importing or exporting incorrect or malicious NLRI is a security risk
for networks themselves, but may also form a threat for connected
and/or remote networks. As such, operators MUST ensure the following
properties when importing or exporting routing information from their
neighbors.
4.1. Importing NLRI
When importing NLRI from a neighbor, an operator MUST ensure that all
imported NLRI conform to the following properties by implementing
technical or organizational measures:
* The AS originating NLRI for a prefix MUST be globally authorized
to originate that prefix. Operators MAY deviate from this for
default routes (::/0 and 0.0.0.0/0), if they granted the specific
neighbor permission to announce default routes towards them.
* All ASes left of the originating AS in the AS_PATH MUST be
authorized to advertise the NLRI to the AS directly to their left,
and the neighbor from which an NLRI is received MUST be authorized
to advertise it to the importing AS.
* The AS_PATH MUST NOT contain AS numbers reserved for private
[RFC6996] or special-use cases, except for those AS numbers
explicitly dedicated to a special-use that requires their presence
in the global routing table [IANAASNSpec].
* The number of NLRI received from a neighbor MUST NOT exceed the
resources of the local router.
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP OPSEC April 2025
4.2. Originating and Redistributing NLRI
When originating NLRI or redistributing NLRI received from a
neighbor, an operator MUST ensure that all NLRI they export conform
to the following properties by implementing technical or
organizational measures:
* The redistributing AS MUST be authorized to redistribute NLRI for
the specific prefix when received from the AS directly to its
right in the AS_PATH. Additionally, each AS in the AS_PATH not
originating the prefix MUST be authorized to redistribute the
prefix when receiving it from the next AS to its right.
* The AS originating NLRI for a prefix MUST be globally authorized
to originate that prefix. Operators MAY deviate from this for
default routes (::/0 and 0.0.0.0/0), if they originate the default
route and the specific neighbor granted them permission to
announce default routes towards them.
* The AS_PATH MUST NOT contain AS numbers reserved for private
[RFC6996] or special-use cases, except for those AS numbers
explicitly dedicated to a special-use that requires their presence
in the global routing table [IANAASNSpec].
4.3. Altering NLRI
When processing NLRI, an operator MUST ensure that basic properties
of these NLRI are not altered:
* An operator MUST NOT change or remove immutable transitive BGP
attributes, e.g., ORIGIN as per [RFC4271]. If an attribute is
unknown to the operator it must be considered immutable. In
selected cases, if a specific attribute is known to be malicious,
an operator MAY either temporarily remove that specific attribute
from NLRI when importing them or filter NLRI carrying the
attribute.
* NLRI carried on BGP MUST NOT be enriched with transitive
attributes subject to change independent of the underlying NLRI,
e.g., encoding RPKI validation state in transitive attributes
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp].
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP OPSEC April 2025
6. Security Considerations
This document is entirely about BGP operational security. It lists
requirements and properties operators MUST ensure using technical or
organizational measures when operating BGP routers in the DFZ.
However, it does not detail how the outlined properties and security
requirements can be implemented and enforced in practice. This is a
conscious choice given that available techniques and methods to
ensure these properties will change over time, while the underlying
principles remain the same.
Instead, readers MAY refer to the most recent non expired draft of
[I-D.ietf-grow-routing-ops-sec-inform] for an updated list of
currently available technology to ensure the above principles, and
the most recent non expired draft of
[I-D.ietf-grow-routing-ops-terms] for information on currently used
terms and definitions in the context of global routing operations.
Readers MUST NOT rely on expired versions of these I-Ds. If no most
recent non-expired version of either I-D is available, the document
MUST be considered to be non-existent.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC6996] Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for
Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, DOI 10.17487/RFC6996, July
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6996>.
[IANAASNSpec]
IANA, "Special-Purpose Autonomous System (AS) Numbers",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-as-numbers-special-
registry/iana-as-numbers-special-registry.xhtml>.
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP OPSEC April 2025
7.2. Informative References
[RFC7454] Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations
and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,
February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.
[I-D.ietf-grow-routing-ops-sec-inform]
Fiebig, T., "Current Options for Securing Global Routing",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-routing-
ops-sec-inform, 9 April 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-routing-
ops-sec-inform/>.
[I-D.ietf-grow-routing-ops-terms]
Fiebig, T., "Currently Used Terminology in Global Routing
Operations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
grow-routing-ops-terms, 9 April 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-routing-
ops-terms/>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp]
Snijders, J., Fiebig, T., and M. A. Stucchi, "Guidance to
Avoid Carrying RPKI Validation States in Transitive BGP
Path Attributes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp, 3 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-
avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp/>.
Acknowledgements
This document has been originally based on [RFC7454] and we thank the
original authors for their work.
We thank the following people for reviewing this draft and suggesting
changes:
* Gert Doerring
* Jeff Haas
* Geng Nan
* Martin Pels
* Job Snijders
* Berislav Todorovic
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP OPSEC April 2025
* Martin Pels
* Wolfgang Tremmel
* Ben Maddison
* Mohamed Boucadair
Authors' Addresses
Tobias Fiebig
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Informatik
Campus E14
66123 Saarbruecken
Germany
Phone: +49 681 9325 3527
Email: tfiebig@mpi-inf.mpg.de
Nick Hilliard
Internet Neutral Exchange Association
4027 Kingswood Road
Citywest, Dublin
D24 AX96
Ireland
Phone: +353 1 433 205 2
Email: nick@inex.ie
Fiebig & Hilliard Expires 17 October 2025 [Page 8]