Design Discussion of Route Leaks Solution Methods
draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-solution-discussion-04
|
Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Author |
|
Kotikalapudi Sriram
|
|
Last updated |
|
2020-09-09
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
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 September 9, 2020
Expires: March 13, 2021
Design Discussion of Route Leaks Solution Methods
draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-solution-discussion-04
Abstract
This document captures the design rationale of the route leaks
solution document (see draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-
mitigation, draft-ietf-grow-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 March 13, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 March 13, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion September 2020
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]
[I-D.ietf-grow-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
Show full document text