Design Discussion of Route Leaks Solution Methods
draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-solution-discussion-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-07-02
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IDR Working Group                                         K. Sriram, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  USA NIST
Intended status: Informational                              July 2, 2018
Expires: January 3, 2019

           Design Discussion of Route Leaks Solution Methods
           draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-solution-discussion-00

Abstract

   This document captures the design rationale of the route leaks
   solution document [draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation].
   The designers needed to balance many competing factors, and this
   document provides insights into the design questions and their
   resolution.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Sriram                   Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Route Leak Solution Discussion            July 2018

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Related Prior Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Design Rationale and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Explanation of Rules 1 and 2 in the solution document . .   3
     3.2.  Is route-leak solution without cryptographic protection
           an attack vector? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Combining results of route-leak detection, OV and BGPsec
           validation for path selection decision  . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Are there cases when valley-free violations can be
           considered legitimate?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  Comparison with other methods (routing security BCPs) . .   7
     3.6.  Per-Hop RLP Field or Single RLP Flag per Update?  . . . .   8
     3.7.  Prevention of Route Leaks at Local AS: Intra-AS Messaging  10
       3.7.1.  Non-Transitive BGP Community for Intra-AS Messaging .  10
     3.8.  Stopgap Solution when Only Origin Validation is Deployed   11
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   This document captures the design rationale of the route leaks
   solution document [I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation].
   The designers needed to balance many competing factors, and this
   document provides insights into the design questions and their
   resolution.

2.  Related Prior Work

   The solution described in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation] is based on setting an
   attribute in BGP route announcement to manage the transmission/
   receipt of the announcement based on the type of neighbor (e.g.,
   customer, transit provider, etc.).  Documented prior work related to
   this basic idea and mechanism dates back to at least the 1980's.
   Some examples of prior work are: (1) Information flow rules described
   in [proceedings-sixth-ietf] (see pp. 195-196); (2) Link Type
   described in [RFC1105-obsolete] (see pp. 4-5); (3) Hierarchical
   Recording described in [draft-kunzinger-idrp-ISO10747-01] (see
   Section 6.3.1.12).  The problem of route leaks and possible solution
   mechanisms based on encoding peering-link type information, e.g., P2C
Show full document text