Design Discussion of Route Leaks Solution Methods
draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-solution-discussion-07
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Kotikalapudi Sriram | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-07 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-solution-discussion-07
IDR Working Group K. Sriram, Ed.
Internet-Draft USA NIST
Intended status: Informational 7 March 2022
Expires: 8 September 2022
Design Discussion of Route Leaks Solution Methods
draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-solution-discussion-07
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 8 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
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? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
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
(i.e., Transit-Provider to Customer), C2P (i.e., Customer to Transit-
Provider), p2p (i.e., peer to peer) etc., in BGPsec updates and
protecting the same under BGPsec path signatures have been discussed
in IETF SIDR WG at least since 2011.
[draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-solns] attempted to describe these
mechanisms in a BGPsec context. The draft expired in 2012.
[draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-solns] defined neighbor relationships
on a per link basis, but in
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation] the relationship is
encoded per prefix, as routes for prefixes with different peering
relationships may be sent over the same link. Also
[draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-solns] proposed a second signature
block for the link type encoding, separate from the path signature
block in BGPsec. By contrast, in
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation], when BGPsec-based
solution is considered, cryptographic protection is provided for
Route-Leak Protection (RLP) encoding using the same signature block
as that for path signatures (see Section 3.2.2 in
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation]).
3. Design Rationale and Discussion
This section provides design justifications for the solution
specified in [I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation], and also
answers some questions that are anticipated or have been raised in
the IETF IDR and SIDR working group meetings.
3.1. Explanation of Rules 1 and 2 in the solution document
In Section 3.3 in [I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation],
Rules 1 and 2 were stated and the route leak mitigation policy was
based on these rules to preserve the property of stable route
convergence (i.e., avoid possibility of persistent route
oscillations). Rule 1 is stated as follows:
* Rule 1: If ISP A receives a route r1 from customer AS C and
another route r2 from provider (or peer) AS B (for the same
prefix), and both routes r1 and r2 contain AS C and AS X (any X
not equal to C) in the path and contain [X] in their RLP
Attributes, then prioritize the customer (AS C) route over the
provider (or peer) route.
The rationale for Rule 1 can be developed as follows.
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
Preference condition for route stability: Prefer customer routes over
peer or provider routes (see pp. 25-27 in [Gao-Rexford]).
Topology condition for route stability: No cycle of customer-provider
relationships (see pp. 25-27 in [Gao-Rexford]).
Route-Leak Detection Theorem: Let it be given that ISP A receives a
route r1 from customer AS C and another route r2 from provider AS B
(for the same prefix), and each of the routes r1 and r2 contains AS C
and AS X in its AS path and contains [X] in its RLP Attribute. Then,
clearly r1 is in violation of [X]. It follows that r2 is also
necessarily in violation of [X].
Proof: Let us suppose that r2 is not in violation of [X]. That
implies that r2's path from C to B to A included only P2C links.
That would mean that there is a cycle of customer-provider
relationships involving the ASes in the AS path in r2. However, any
such cycle is ruled out in practice by the topology condition for
route stability as stated above. QED.
Corollary 1: The route leak detection theorem holds also when
"provider AS B" in the theorem is replaced by "peer AS B". (Here
peer means a lateral peer.)
Proof: Since r2 contains [X] in the RLP Attribute set by an AS prior
to peer AS B, it follows that r2 is in violation of [X]. QED.
It can be observed that Rule 1 follows from the combination of the
Theorem, Corollary 1 and the preference condition for route stability
(stated above).
In Section 3.3 in [I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation],
Rule 2 is stated as follows:
* Rule 2: If ISP A receives a route r1 from peer AS C and another
route r2 from provider AS B (for the same prefix), and both routes
r1 and r2 contain AS C and AS X (any X not equal to C) in the path
and contain [X] in their RLP Attributes, then prioritize the peer
(AS C) route over the provider (AS B) route.
The rationale for Rule 2 can be developed as follows.
Corollary 2: The route leak detection theorem holds also when
"customer AS C" in the theorem is replaced by "peer AS C".
Proof for Corollary 2: Let us suppose that r2 is not in violation of
[X]. That implies that r2's path from C to B to A included only P2C
links. This results in a topology in which A's lateral peer B is
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
also A's transit provider's transit provider. This gives rise to
possibility of looping of routes since A can send routes to its
transit B, B can forward the routes to its transit C, and C can
forward the routes to its peer A. But such looping is forbidden by
the topology condition stated above.
It can be observed that Rule 2 follows from Corollary 2. In essence,
if the provider route (r2) is a detoured (longer) version of the
lateral peer route (r1), and violates the same RLP [X] as does the
peer route, then prefer the shorter route (r2) via the peer.
Rules 1 and 2 are
3.2. Is route-leak solution without cryptographic protection an attack
vector?
It has been asked if a route-leak solution without BGPsec, i.e., when
RLP Fields are not protected, can turn into a new attack vector. The
answer seems to be: not really! Even the NLRI and AS_PATH in BGP
updates are attack vectors, and RPKI/OV/BGPsec seek to fix that.
Consider the following. Say, if 99% of route leaks are accidental
and 1% are malicious, and if route-leak solution without BGPsec
eliminates the 99%, then perhaps it is worth it (step in the right
direction). When BGPsec comes into deployment, the route-leak
protection (RLP) bits can be mapped into BGPsec (using the Flags
field) and then necessary security will be in place as well (within
each BGPsec island as and when they emerge).
Further, let us consider the worst-case damage that can be caused by
maliciously manipulating the RLP Field values in an implementation
without cryptographic protection (i.e., sans BGPsec). Manipulation
of the RLP bits can result in one of two types of attacks: (a)
Upgrade attack and (b) Downgrade attack. Descriptions and
discussions about these attacks follow. In what follows, P2C stands
for transit provider to customer (Down); C2P stands for customer to
transit provider (Up), and p2p stands for peer to peer (lateral or
non-transit relationship).
(a) Upgrade attack: An AS that wants to intentionally leak a route
would alter the RLP encodings for the preceding hops from 1 (i.e.,
'Do not Propagate Up or Lateral') to 0 (default) wherever applicable.
This poses no problem for a route that keeps propagating in the
'Down' (P2C) direction. However, for a route that propagates 'Up'
(C2P) or 'Lateral' (p2p), the worst that can happen is that a route
leak goes undetected. That is, a receiving router would not be able
to detect the leak for the route in question by the RLP mechanism
described here. However, the receiving router may still detect and
mitigate it in some cases by applying other means such as prefix
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
filters [RFC7454] [NIST-800-54]. If some malicious leaks go
undetected (when RLP is deployed without BGPsec) that is possibly a
small price to pay for the ability to detect the bulk of route leaks
that are accidental.
(b) Downgrade attack: RLP encoding is set to 1 (i.e., 'Do not
Propagate Up or Lateral') when it should be set to 0 (default). This
would result in a route being mis-detected and marked as a route
leak. By default, RLP encoding is set to 0, and that helps reduce
errors of this kind (i.e., accidental downgrade incidents). Every AS
or ISP wants reachability for prefixes it originates and for its
customer prefixes. So, an AS or ISP is not likely to change an RLP
value 0 to 1 intentionally. If a route leak is detected (due to
intentional or accidental downgrade) by a receiving router, it would
prefer an alternate 'clean' route from a transit provider or peer
over a 'marked' route from a customer. It may end up with a
suboptimal path. In order to have reachability, the receiving router
would accept a 'marked' route if there is no alternative that is
'clean'. So, RLP downgrade attacks (intentional or accidental) would
be quite rare, and the consequences do not appear to be grave.
3.3. Combining results of route-leak detection, OV and BGPsec
validation for path selection decision
Combining the results of route-leak detection, OV, and BGPsec
validation for path selection decision is up to local policy in a
receiving router. As an example, a router may always give precedence
to outcomes of OV and BGPsec validation over that of route-leak
detection. That is, if an update fails OV or BGPsec validation, then
the update is not considered a candidate for path selection.
Instead, an alternate update is chosen that passed OV and BGPsec
validation and additionally was not marked as route leak.
If only OV is deployed (and not BGPsec), then there are six possible
combinations between OV and route-leak detection outcomes. Because
there are three possible outcomes for OV (NotFound, Valid, and
Invalid) and two possible outcomes for route-leak detection (marked
as leak and not marked). If OV and BGPsec are both deployed, then
there are twelve possible combinations between OV, BGPsec validation,
and route-leak detection outcomes. As stated earlier, since BGPsec
protects the RLP encoding, there would be added certainty in route-
leak detection outcome if an update is BGPsec valid (see
Section 3.2).
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
3.4. Are there cases when valley-free violations can be considered
legitimate?
There are studies in the literature [Anwar] [Giotsas] [Wijchers]
observing and analyzing the behavior of routes announced in BGP
updates using data gathered from the Internet. The studies have
focused on how often there appear to be valley-free (e.g., Gao-
Rexford [Gao] model) violations, and if they can be explained
[Anwar]. One important consideration for explanation of the
violations is per-prefix routing policies, i.e., routes for prefixes
with different peering relationships may be sent over the same link.
One encouraging result reported in [Anwar] is that when per-prefix
routing policies are taken into consideration in the data analysis,
more than 80% of the observed routing decisions fit the valley-free
model (see Section 4.3 and SPA-1 data in Figure 2). [Anwar] also
observes, "it is well known that this model [the basic Gao-Rexford
model and some variations of it] fails to capture many aspects of the
interdomain routing system. These aspects include AS relationships
that vary based on the geographic region or destination prefix, and
traffic engineering via hot-potato routing or load balancing." So,
there may be potential for explaining the remaining (20% or less)
violations of valley-free as well.
One major design factor is that the Route-Leak Protection (RLP)
encoding is per prefix. Hence, the solution is consistent with ISPs'
per-prefix routing policies. Large global and other major ISPs will
be the likely early adopters, and they are expected to have expertise
in setting policies (including per prefix policies, if applicable),
and make proper use of the RLP indications on a per prefix basis.
When the large ISPs participate in this solution deployment, it is
envisioned that they would form a ring of protection against route
leaks, and co-operatively avoid many of the common types of route
leaks that are observed. Route leaks may still happen occasionally
within the customer cones (if some customer ASes are not
participating or not diligently implementing RLP), but such leaks are
unlikely to propagate from one large participating ISP to another.
3.5. Comparison with other methods (routing security BCPs)
It is reasonable to ask if techniques considered in BCPs such
as[RFC7454] (BGP Operations and Security) and [NIST-800-54] may be
adequate to address route leaks. The prefix filtering
recommendations in the BCPs may be complementary but not adequate.
The difficulty is in ISPs' ability to construct prefix filters that
represent their customer cones (CC) accurately, especially when there
are many levels in the hierarchy within the CC. In the RLP-encoding
based solution described here, each AS sets RLP for each route
propagated and thus signals if it must not be subsequently propagated
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
to a transit provider or peer.
AS path based Outbound Route Filter (ORF) described in
[I-D.ietf-idr-aspath-orf] is also an interesting complementary
technique. It can be used as an automated collaborative messaging
system (implemented in BGP) for ISPs to try to develop a complete
view of the ASes and AS paths in their CCs. Once an ISP has that
view, then AS path filters can be possibly used to detect route
leaks. One limitation of this technique is that it cannot duly take
into account the fact that routes for prefixes with different peering
relationships may be sent over the same link between ASes. Also, the
success of AS path based ORF depends on whether ASes at all levels of
the hierarchy in a CC participate and provide accurate information
(in the ORF messages) about the AS paths they expect to have in their
BGP updates.
3.6. Per-Hop RLP Field or Single RLP Flag per Update?
The route-leak detection and mitigation mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation] is based on setting
RLP Fields on a per-hop basis. There is another possible mechanism
based on a single RLP flag per update.
Method A - Per-Hop RLP Field: The sender (eBGP router) on each hop in
the AS path sets its RLP Field = 1 if sending the update to a
customer or lateral peer (see Section 3.2 in
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation]). No AS (if operating
correctly) would rewrite the RLP Field set by any preceding AS.
Method Z - Single RLP Flag per Update: As it propagates, the update
would have at most one RLP flag. Once an eBGP router (in the update
path) determines that it is sending an update towards a customer or
lateral peer AS, it sets the RLP flag. The flag value equals the AS
number of the eBGP router that is setting it. Once the flag is set,
subsequent ASes in the path must propagate the flag as is.
To compare Methods A and Z, consider the example illustrated in
Figure 1. Consider a partial deployment scenario in which AS1, AS2,
AS3 and AS5 participate in RLP, and AS4 does not. AS1 (2 levels deep
in AS3's customer cone) has imperfect RLP operation. Each complying
AS's route leak mitigation policy is to prefer an update not marked
as route leak (see Section 3.3 in
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation]). If there is no
alternative, then a transit-provider may accept and propagate a
marked update from a customer to avoid unreachability. In this
example, multi-homed AS4 leaks a route received for prefix Q from
transit-provider AS3 to transit-provider AS5.
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
+-----------+ RLP=1 +-----------+
| AS3 |---------->| AS5 |
|(Major ISP)| U2 |(Major ISP)|
+-----------+ +-----------+
/\ \ /\ U1
Route for Q propagated / \RLP=1 /
due to lack of /RLP=0 \ / (route leak;
alternate route / \/ / bad behavior)
+---------+ +-------------+
| AS2 | | AS4 |
+---------+ +-------------+
/\ (legacy; does not support RLP)
/
/
/RLP=1 (set incorrectly)
/
+----------+
| AS1 |
+----------+
/\
/
/ Prefix Q
Figure 1: Example for comparison of Method A vs. Method Z
If Method A is implemented in the network, the two BGP updates for
prefix Q received at AS5 are (note that AS4 is not participating in
RLP):
U1A: Q [AS4 AS3 AS2 AS1] {RLP3(AS3)=1, RLP2(AS2)=0, RLP1(AS1)=1}
..... from AS4
U2A: Q [AS3 AS2 AS1] {RLP3(AS3)=1, RLP2(AS2)=0, RLP1(AS1)=1} .....
from AS3
Alternatively, if Method Z is implemented in the network, the two BGP
updates for prefix Q received at AS5 are:
U1B: Q [AS4 AS3 AS2 AS1] {RLP(AS1)=1} ..... from AS4
U2B: Q [AS3 AS2 AS1] {RLP(AS1)=1} ..... from AS3
All received routes for prefix Q at AS5 are marked as route leak in
either case (Method A or Z). In the case of Method A, AS5 can use
additional information gleaned from the RLP fields in the updates to
possibly make a better best path selection. For example, AS5 can
determine that U1A update received from its customer AS4 exhibits
violation of two RLP fields (those set by AS1 and AS3) and one of
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
them was set just two hops away. But U2A update exhibits that only
one RLP field was violated and that was set three hops back. Based
on this logic, AS5 may prefer U2A over U1A (even though U1A is a
customer route). This would be a good decision. However, Method Z
does not facilitate this kind of more rational decision process.
With Method Z, both updates U1B and U2B exhibit that they violated
only one RLP field (set by AS1 several hops away). AS5 may then
prefer U1B over U2B since U1B is from a customer, and that would be
bad decision. This illustrates that, due to more information in per-
hop RLP Fields, Method A seems to be operationally more beneficial
than Method Z.
Further, for detection and notification of neighbor AS's non-
compliance, Method A (per-hop RLP) is better than Method Z (single
RLP). With Method A, the bad behavior of AS4 would be explicitly
evident to AS5 since it violated AS3's (only two hops away) RLP field
as well. AS5 would alert AS4 and AS2 would alert AS1 about lack of
compliance (when Method A is used). With Method Z, the alerting
process may not be as expeditious.
3.7. Prevention of Route Leaks at Local AS: Intra-AS Messaging
Note: The intra-AS messaging for route leak prevention can be done
using a non-transitive BGP Community or Attribute. The Community-
based method is described below. For the BGP Attribute-based method,
see [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy].
3.7.1. Non-Transitive BGP Community for Intra-AS Messaging
The following procedure (or similar) for intra-AS messaging (i.e.,
between ingress and egress routers) for prevention of route leaks is
a fairly common practice used by large ISPs. (Note: This information
was gathered from discussions on the NANOG mailing list
[Nanog-thread-June2016] as well as through private discussions with
operators of large ISP networks.)
Routes are tagged on ingress to an AS with communities for origin,
including the type of eBGP peer it was learned from (customer,
provider or lateral peer), geographic location, etc. The community
attributes are carried across the AS with the routes. These
communities are used along with additional logic in route policies to
determine which routes are to be announced to which eBGP peers and
which are to be dropped. In this process, the ISP's AS also ensures
that routes learned from a transit-provider or a lateral peer (i.e.,
non-transit) at an ingress router are not leaked at an egress router
to another transit-provider or lateral peer.
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
Additionally, in many cases, ISP network operators' outbound policies
require explicit matches for expected communities before passing
routes. This helps ensure that that if an update has been entered
into the RIB-in but has missed its ingress community tagging (due to
a missing/misapplied ingress policy), it will not be inadvertently
leaked.
The above procedure (or a simplified version of it) is also
applicable when an AS consists of a single eBGP router. It is
recommended that all AS operators SHOULD implement the procedure
described above (or similar that is appropriate for their network) to
prevent route leaks that they have direct control over.
3.8. Stopgap Solution when Only Origin Validation is Deployed
A stopgap method is described here for detection and mitigation of
route leaks for the intermediate phase when OV is deployed but BGP
protocol on the wire is unchanged. The stopgap solution can be in
the form of construction of a prefix filter list from ROAs. A
suggested procedure for constructing such a list comprises of the
following steps:
* ISP makes a list of all the ASes (Cust_AS_List) that are in its
customer cone (ISP's own AS is also included in the list). (Some
of the ASes in Cust_AS_List may be multi-homed to another ISP and
that is OK.)
* ISP downloads from the RPKI repositories a complete list
(Cust_ROA_List) of valid ROAs that contain any of the ASes in
Cust_AS_List.
* ISP creates a list of all the prefixes (Cust_Prfx_List) that are
contained in any of the ROAs in Cust_ROA_List.
* Cust_Prfx_List is the allowed list of prefixes that is permitted
by the ISP's AS, and will be forwarded by the ISP to upstream
ISPs, customers, and peers.
* A route for a prefix that is not in Cust_Prfx_List but announced
by one of ISP's customers is 'marked' as a potential route leak.
Further, the ISP's router SHOULD prefer an alternate route that is
Valid (i.e., valid according to origin validation) and 'clean'
(i.e., not marked) over the 'marked' route. The alternate route
may be from a peer, transit provider, or different customer.
Special considerations regarding the above procedure may be needed
for DDoS mitigation service providers. They typically originate or
announce a DDoS victim's prefix to their own ISP on a short notice
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
during a DDoS emergency. Some provisions would need to be made for
such cases, and they can be determined with the help of inputs from
DDoS mitigation service providers.
For developing a list of all the ASes (Cust_AS_List) that are in the
customer cone of an ISP, the AS path based Outbound Route Filter
(ORF) technique [I-D.ietf-idr-aspath-orf] can be helpful (see
discussion in Section 3.5).
Another technique based on AS_PATH filters is described in
[Snijders]. This method is applicable to very large ISPs that have
lateral peering. For a pair of such very large ISPs, say A and B,
the method depends on ISP A communicating out-of-band (e.g., by
email) with ISP B about whether or not it (ISP A) has any transit
providers. This out-of-band knowledge enables ISP B to apply
suitable AS_PATH filtering criteria for routes involving the presence
of ISP A in the path and prevent certain kinds of route leaks (see
[Snijders] for details).
4. Security Considerations
This document requires no security considerations. See
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation] for security
considerations for the solution for route leaks detection and
mitigation.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[Anwar] Anwar, R., Niaz, H., Choffnes, D., Cunha, I., Gill, P.,
and N. Katz-Bassett, "Investigating Interdomain Routing
Policies in the Wild", ACM Internet Measurement
Conference (IMC), October 2015,
<http://www.cs.usc.edu/assets/007/94928.pdf>.
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
[draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-solns]
Dickson, B., "Route Leaks -- Proposed Solutions", IETF
Internet Draft (expired), March 2012,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dickson-sidr-route-
leak-solns-01>.
[draft-kunzinger-idrp-ISO10747-01]
Kunzinger, C., "Inter-Domain Routing Protocol
(IDRP)", IETF Internet Draft (expired), November 1994,
<https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-kunzinger-idrp-
ISO10747-01.pdf>.
[Gao] Gao, L. and J. Rexford, "Stable Internet routing without
global coordination", IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking, December 2001,
<http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/
sigmetrics00.long.pdf>.
[Gao-Rexford]
Freedman, M., "Interdomain Routing Policy", Princeton
University COS 461 Lecture Notes; Slides 25-27,
<http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr11/cos461/
docs/lec17-bgp-policy.ppt>.
[Gill] Gill, P., Schapira, M., and S. Goldberg, "A Survey of
Interdomain Routing Policies", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, January 2014,
<https://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/survey.pdf>.
[Giotsas] Giotsas, V. and S. Zhou, "Valley-free violation in
Internet routing - Analysis based on BGP Community
data", IEEE ICC 2012, June 2012.
[I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation]
Sriram, K. and A. Azimov, "Methods for Detection and
Mitigation of BGP Route Leaks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-
mitigation-06, 24 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow-route-
leak-detection-mitigation-06.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-aspath-orf]
Hares, S. and K. Patel, "AS Path Based Outbound Route
Filter for BGP-4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf-13, 19 December 2016,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-aspath-
orf-13.txt>.
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy]
Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., and K.
Sriram, "Route Leak Prevention and Detection using Roles
in UPDATE and OPEN Messages", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-23, 3 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-
policy-23.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation]
Sriram, K. and A. Azimov, "Methods for Detection and
Mitigation of BGP Route Leaks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-
mitigation-11, 18 April 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-route-
leak-detection-mitigation-11.txt>.
[Luckie] Luckie, M., Huffaker, B., Dhamdhere, A., Giotsas, V., and
kc. claffy, "AS Relationships, Customer Cones, and
Validation", IMC 2013, October 2013,
<http://www.caida.org/~amogh/papers/asrank-IMC13.pdf>.
[Nanog-thread-June2016]
"Intra-AS messaging for route leak prevention", NANOG
Email List - Discussion Thread , June 2016,
<http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-June/
thread.html#86348>.
[NIST-800-54]
Kuhn, D.R., Sriram, K., and D. Montgomery, "Border Gateway
Protocol Security", NIST Special Publication 800-54, July
2007, <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-54/
SP800-54.pdf>.
[proceedings-sixth-ietf]
Gross, P., "Proceedings of the April 22-24, 1987 Internet
Engineering Task Force", April 1987,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06.pdf>.
[RFC1105-obsolete]
Lougheed, K. and Y. Rekhter, "A Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP)", IETF RFC (obsolete), June 1989,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1105>.
[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>.
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
[RFC7908] Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., McPherson, D., Osterweil, E.,
and B. Dickson, "Problem Definition and Classification of
BGP Route Leaks", RFC 7908, DOI 10.17487/RFC7908, June
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7908>.
[RFC8205] Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol
Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.
[Snijders] Snijders, J., "Practical everyday BGP filtering with
AS_PATH filters: Peer Locking", NANOG 67 Chicago, IL, USA,
June 2016, <https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/
Snijders_Everyday_Practical_Bgp.pdf>.
[Wijchers] Wijchers, B. and B. Overeinder, "Quantitative Analysis of
BGP Route Leaks", RIPE-69, November 2014,
<https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/157-RIPE-69-
Routing-WG.pdf>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Job Snijders,
Warren Kumari, Amogh Dhamdhere, Jakob Heitz, Geoff Huston, Ruediger
Volk, Sue Hares, John Scudder, Wes George, Chris Morrow, Sandy
Murphy, Danny McPherson, and Eric Osterweil for comments,
suggestions, and critique. The authors are also thankful to Padma
Krishnaswamy, Oliver Borchert, and Okhee Kim for their review and
comments.
Contributors
The following people made significant contributions to this document
and should be considered co-authors:
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Route Leak Solution Discussion March 2022
Alexander Azimov
Yandex
Email: a.e.azimov@gmail.com
Brian Dickson
Independent
Email: brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com
Doug Montgomery
USA National Institute of Standards and Technology
Email: dougm@nist.gov
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Andrei Robachevsky
Internet Society
Email: robachevsky@isoc.org
Eugene Bogomazov
Qrator Labs
Email: eb@qrator.net
Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan
Email: randy@psg.com
Author's Address
Kotikalapudi Sriram (editor)
USA National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
United States of America
Email: ksriram@nist.gov
Sriram Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 16]