BGP Operations and Security
RFC 7454
| Document | Type |
RFC - Best Current Practice
(February 2015)
Also known as BCP 194
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jerome Durand , Ivan Pepelnjak, Gert Döring | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-jdurand-bgp-security | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
RTGDIR Last Call review
(of
-05)
Not Ready
GENART Last Call review
(of
-05)
Ready with Nits
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Gunter Van de Velde | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2014-08-20 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7454 (Best Current Practice) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Joel Jaeggli | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
RFC 7454
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Durand
Request for Comments: 7454 Cisco Systems, Inc.
BCP: 194 I. Pepelnjak
Category: Best Current Practice NIL
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Doering
SpaceNet
February 2015
BGP Operations and Security
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the protocol almost exclusively
used in the Internet to exchange routing information between network
domains. Due to this central nature, it is important to understand
the security measures that can and should be deployed to prevent
accidental or intentional routing disturbances.
This document describes measures to protect the BGP sessions itself
such as Time to Live (TTL), the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO),
and control-plane filtering. It also describes measures to better
control the flow of routing information, using prefix filtering and
automation of prefix filters, max-prefix filtering, Autonomous System
(AS) path filtering, route flap dampening, and BGP community
scrubbing.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://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.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Scope of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protection of the BGP Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Protection of BGP Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Protection of TCP Sessions Used by BGP . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. BGP TTL Security (GTSM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Prefix Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Definition of Prefix Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.1. Special-Purpose Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.2. Unallocated Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.3. Prefixes That Are Too Specific . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.4. Filtering Prefixes Belonging to the Local AS and
Downstreams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.5. IXP LAN Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.6. The Default Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Prefix Filtering Recommendations in Full Routing Networks 14
6.2.1. Filters with Internet Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.2. Filters with Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.3. Filters with Upstream Providers . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. Prefix Filtering Recommendations for Leaf Networks . . . 17
6.3.1. Inbound Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3.2. Outbound Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. BGP Route Flap Dampening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Maximum Prefixes on a Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. AS Path Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Next-Hop Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. BGP Community Scrubbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. IXP LAN Prefix Filtering - Example . . . . . . . . . 25
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
1. Introduction
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), specified in RFC 4271 [2], 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. This document intends
to both summarize common existing guidelines and help network
administrators apply coherent BGP policies.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
2. Scope of the Document
The guidelines defined in this document are intended for generic
Internet BGP peerings. The nature of the Internet is such that
Autonomous Systems can always agree on exceptions to a common
framework for relevant local needs, and therefore configure a BGP
session in a manner that may differ from the recommendations provided
in this document. While this is perfectly acceptable, every
configured exception might have an impact on the entire inter-domain
routing environment, and network administrators SHOULD carefully
appraise this impact before implementation.
3. Definitions and Acronyms
o ACL: Access Control List
o ASN: Autonomous System Number
o IRR: Internet Routing Registry
o IXP: Internet Exchange Point
o LIR: Local Internet Registry
o PMTUD: Path MTU Discovery
o RIR: Regional Internet Registry
o Tier 1 transit provider: an IP transit provider that can reach any
network on the Internet without purchasing transit services.
o uRPF: Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
In addition to the list above, the following terms are used with a
specific meaning.
o Downstream: any network that is downstream; it can be a provider
or a customer network.
o Upstream: any network that is upstream.
4. Protection of the BGP Speaker
The BGP speaker needs to be protected from attempts to subvert the
BGP session. This protection SHOULD be achieved by an Access Control
List (ACL) that would discard all packets directed to TCP port 179 on
the local device and sourced from an address not known or permitted
to become a BGP neighbor. Experience has shown that the natural
protection TCP should offer is not always sufficient, as it is
sometimes run in control-plane software. In the absence of ACLs, it
is possible to attack a BGP speaker by simply sending a high volume
of connection requests to it.
If supported, an ACL specific to the control plane of the router
SHOULD be used (receive-ACL, control-plane policing, etc.), to avoid
configuration of data-plane filters for packets transiting through
the router (and therefore not reaching the control plane). If the
hardware cannot do that, interface ACLs can be used to block packets
addressed to the local router.
Some routers automatically program such an ACL upon BGP
configuration. On other devices, this ACL should be configured and
maintained manually or using scripts.
In addition to strict filtering, rate-limiting MAY be configured for
accepted BGP traffic. Rate-limiting BGP traffic consists in
permitting only a certain quantity of bits per second (or packets per
second) of BGP traffic to the control plane. This protects the BGP
router control plane in case the amount of BGP traffic surpasses
platform capabilities.
Filtering and rate-limiting of control-plane traffic is a wider topic
than "just for BGP". (If a network administrator brings down a
router by overloading one of the other protocols remotely, BGP is
harmed as well.) For a more detailed recommendation on how to
protect the router's control plane, see RFC 6192 [11].
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
5. Protection of BGP Sessions
Current security issues of TCP-based protocols (therefore including
BGP) have been documented in RFC 6952 [14]. The following
subsections list the major points raised in this RFC and give the
best practices related to TCP session protection for BGP operation.
5.1. Protection of TCP Sessions Used by BGP
Attacks on TCP sessions used by BGP (aka BGP sessions), for example,
sending spoofed TCP RST packets, could bring down a BGP peering.
Following a successful ARP spoofing attack (or other similar man-in-
the-middle attack), the attacker might even be able to inject packets
into the TCP stream (routing attacks).
BGP sessions can be secured with a variety of mechanisms. MD5
protection of the TCP session header, described in RFC 2385 [7], was
the first such mechanism. It has been obsoleted by the TCP
Authentication Option (TCP-AO; RFC 5925 [4]), which offers stronger
protection. While MD5 is still the most used mechanism due to its
availability in vendors' equipment, TCP-AO SHOULD be preferred when
implemented.
IPsec could also be used for session protection. At the time of
publication, there is not enough experience of the impact of using
IPsec for BGP peerings, and further analysis is required to define
guidelines.
The drawback of TCP session protection is additional configuration
and management overhead for the maintenance of authentication
information (for example, MD5 passwords). Protection of TCP sessions
used by BGP is thus NOT REQUIRED even when peerings are established
over shared networks where spoofing can be done (like IXPs), but
operators are RECOMMENDED to consider the trade-offs and to apply TCP
session protection where appropriate.
Furthermore, network administrators SHOULD block spoofed packets
(packets with a source IP address belonging to their IP address
space) at all edges of their network (see RFC 2827 [8] and RFC 3704
[9]). This protects the TCP session used by Internal BGP (IBGP) from
attackers outside the Autonomous System.
5.2. BGP TTL Security (GTSM)
BGP sessions can be made harder to spoof with the Generalized TTL
Security Mechanisms (GTSM aka TTL security), defined in RFC 5082 [3].
Instead of sending TCP packets with TTL value of 1, the BGP speakers
send the TCP packets with TTL value of 255, and the receiver checks
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
that the TTL value equals 255. Since it's impossible to send an IP
packet with TTL of 255 to an IP host that is not directly connected,
BGP TTL security effectively prevents all spoofing attacks coming
from third parties not directly connected to the same subnet as the
BGP-speaking routers. Network administrators SHOULD implement TTL
security on directly connected BGP peerings.
GTSM could also be applied to multi-hop BGP peering as well. To
achieve this, TTL needs to be configured with a proper value
depending on the distance between BGP speakers (using the principle
described above). Nevertheless, it is not as effective because
anyone inside the TTL diameter could spoof the TTL.
Like MD5 protection, TTL security has to be configured on both ends
of a BGP session.
6. Prefix Filtering
The main aspect of securing BGP resides in controlling the prefixes
that are received and advertised on the BGP peerings. Prefixes
exchanged between BGP peers are controlled with inbound and outbound
filters that can match on IP prefixes (as described in this section),
AS paths (as described in Section 9) or any other attributes of a BGP
prefix (for example, BGP communities, as described in Section 11).
6.1. Definition of Prefix Filters
This section lists the most commonly used prefix filters. The
following sections will clarify where these filters should be
applied.
6.1.1. Special-Purpose Prefixes
6.1.1.1. IPv4 Special-Purpose Prefixes
The IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry [23] maintains the
list of IPv4 special-purpose prefixes and their routing scope, and it
SHOULD be used for prefix-filter configuration. Prefixes with value
"False" in column "Global" SHOULD be discarded on Internet BGP
peerings.
6.1.1.2. IPv6 Special-Purpose Prefixes
The IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry [24] maintains the
list of IPv6 special-purpose prefixes and their routing scope, and it
SHOULD be used for prefix-filter configuration. Only prefixes with
value "False" in column "Global" SHOULD be discarded on Internet BGP
peerings.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
6.1.2. Unallocated Prefixes
IANA allocates prefixes to RIRs that in turn allocate prefixes to
LIRs (Local Internet Registries). It is wise not to accept routing
table prefixes that are not allocated by IANA and/or RIRs. This
section details the options for building a list of allocated prefixes
at every level. It is important to understand that filtering
unallocated prefixes requires constant updates, as prefixes are
continually allocated. Therefore, automation of such prefix filters
is key for the success of this approach. Network administrators
SHOULD NOT consider solutions described in this section if they are
not capable of maintaining updated prefix filters: the damage would
probably be worse than the intended security policy.
6.1.2.1. IANA-Allocated Prefix Filters
IANA has allocated all the IPv4 available space. Therefore, there is
no reason why network administrators would keep checking that
prefixes they receive from BGP peers are in the IANA-allocated IPv4
address space [25]. No specific filters need to be put in place by
administrators who want to make sure that IPv4 prefixes they receive
in BGP updates have been allocated by IANA.
For IPv6, given the size of the address space, it can be seen as wise
to accept only prefixes derived from those allocated by IANA.
Administrators can dynamically build this list from the IANA-
allocated IPv6 space [26]. As IANA keeps allocating prefixes to
RIRs, the aforementioned list should be checked regularly against
changes, and if they occur, prefix filters should be computed and
pushed on network devices. The list could also be pulled directly by
routers when they implement such mechanisms. As there is delay
between the time a RIR receives a new prefix and the moment it starts
allocating portions of it to its LIRs, there is no need for doing
this step quickly and frequently. However, network administrators
SHOULD ensure that all IPv6 prefix filters are updated within a
maximum of one month after any change in the list of IPv6 prefixes
allocated by IANA.
If the process in place (whether manual or automatic) cannot
guarantee that the list is updated regularly, then it's better not to
configure any filters based on allocated networks. The IPv4
experience has shown that many network operators implemented filters
for prefixes not allocated by IANA but did not update them on a
regular basis. This created problems for the latest allocations, and
required extra work for RIRs that had to "de-bogonize" the newly
allocated prefixes. (See [18] for information on de-bogonizing.)
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
6.1.2.2. RIR-Allocated Prefix Filters
A more precise check can be performed when one would like to make
sure that prefixes they receive are being originated or transited by
Autonomous Systems (ASes) entitled to do so. It has been observed in
the past that an AS could easily advertise someone else's prefix (or
more specific prefixes) and create black holes or security threats.
To partially mitigate this risk, administrators would need to make
sure BGP advertisements correspond to information located in the
existing registries. At this stage, two options can be considered:
short- and long-term options. They are described in the following
subsections.
6.1.2.2.1. Prefix Filters Created from Internet Routing Registries
(IRRs)
An Internet Routing Registry (IRR) is a database containing Internet
routing information, described using Routing Policy Specification
Language objects as described in RFC 4012 [10]. Network
administrators are given privileges to describe routing policies of
their own networks in the IRR, and that information is published,
usually publicly. A majority of Regional Internet Registries do also
operate an IRR and can control whether registered routes conform to
the prefixes that are allocated or directly assigned. However, it
should be noted that the list of such prefixes is not necessarily a
complete list, and as such the list of routes in an IRR is not the
same as the set of RIR-allocated prefixes.
It is possible to use the IRR information to build, for a given
neighbor AS, a list of originated or transited prefixes that one may
accept. This can be done relatively easily using scripts and
existing tools capable of retrieving this information from the
registries. This approach is exactly the same for both IPv4 and
IPv6.
The macro-algorithm for the script is as follows. For the peer that
is considered, the distant network administrator has provided the AS
and may be able to provide an AS-SET object (aka AS-MACRO). An
AS-SET is an object that contains AS numbers or other AS-SETs. An
operator may create an AS-SET defining all the AS numbers of its
customers. A Tier 1 transit provider might create an AS-SET
describing the AS-SET of connected operators, which in turn describe
the AS numbers of their customers. Using recursion, it is possible
to retrieve from an AS-SET the complete list of AS numbers that the
peer is likely to announce. For each of these AS numbers, it is also
easy to look in the corresponding IRR for all associated prefixes.
With these two mechanisms, a script can build, for a given peer, the
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
list of allowed prefixes and the AS number from which they should be
originated. One could decide not use the origin information and only
build monolithic prefix filters from fetched data.
As prefixes, AS numbers, and AS-SETs may not all be under the same
RIR authority, it is difficult to choose for each object the
appropriate IRR to poll. Some IRRs have been created and are not
restricted to a given region or authoritative RIR. They allow RIRs
to publish information contained in their IRR in a common place.
They also make it possible for any subscriber (probably under
contract) to publish information too. When doing requests inside
such an IRR, it is possible to specify the source of information in
order to have the most reliable data. One could check a popular IRR
containing many sources (such as RADb [27], the Routing Assets
Database) and only select as sources some desired RIRs and trusted
major ISPs (Internet Service Providers).
As objects in IRRs may frequently vary over time, it is important
that prefix filters computed using this mechanism are refreshed
regularly. Refreshing the filters on a daily basis SHOULD be
considered because routing changes must sometimes be done in an
emergency and registries may be updated at the very last moment.
Note that this approach significantly increases the complexity of the
router configurations, as it can quickly add tens of thousands of
configuration lines for some important peers. To manage this
complexity, network administrators could use, for example, IRRToolSet
[30], a set of tools making it possible to simplify the creation of
automated filter configuration from policies stored in an IRR.
Last but not least, network administrators SHOULD publish and
maintain their resources properly in the IRR database maintained by
their RIR, when available.
6.1.2.2.2. SIDR - Secure Inter-Domain Routing
An infrastructure called SIDR (Secure Inter-Domain Routing),
described in RFC 6480 [12], has been designed to secure Internet
advertisements. At the time of writing this document, many documents
have been published and a framework with a complete set of protocols
is proposed so that advertisements can be checked against signed
routing objects in RIRs. There are basically two services that SIDR
offers:
o Origin validation, described in RFC 6811 [5], seeks to make sure
that attributes associated with routes are correct. (The major
point is the validation of the AS number originating a given
route.) Origin validation is now operational (Internet
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
registries, protocols, implementations on some routers), and in
theory it can be implemented knowing that the number of signed
resources is still low at the time of writing this document.
o Path validation provided by BGPsec [29] seeks to make sure that no
one announces fake/wrong BGP paths that would attract traffic for
a given destination; see RFC 7132 [16]. BGPsec is still an
ongoing work item at the time of writing this document and
therefore cannot be implemented.
Implementing SIDR mechanisms is expected to solve many of the BGP
routing security problems in the long term, but it may take time for
deployments to be made and objects to become signed. Also, note that
the SIDR infrastructure is complementing (not replacing) the security
best practices listed in this document. Therefore, network
administrators SHOULD implement any SIDR proposed mechanism (for
example, route origin validation) on top of the other existing
mechanisms even if they could sometimes appear to be targeting the
same goal.
If route origin validation is implemented, the reader SHOULD refer to
the rules described in RFC 7115 [15]. In short, each external route
received on a router SHOULD be checked against the Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) data set:
o If a corresponding ROA (Route Origin Authorization) is found and
is valid, then the prefix SHOULD be accepted.
o If the ROA is found and is INVALID, then the prefix SHOULD be
discarded.
o If a ROA is not found, then the prefix SHOULD be accepted, but the
corresponding route SHOULD be given a low preference.
In addition to this, network administrators SHOULD sign their routing
objects so their routes can be validated by other networks running
origin validation.
One should understand that the RPKI model brings new, interesting
challenges. The paper "On the Risk of Misbehaving RPKI Authorities"
[31] explains how the RPKI model can impact the Internet if
authorities don't behave as they are supposed to. Further analysis
is certainly required on RPKI, which carries part of BGP security.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
6.1.3. Prefixes That Are Too Specific
Most ISPs will not accept advertisements beyond a certain level of
specificity (and in return, they do not announce prefixes they
consider to be too specific). That acceptable specificity is decided
for each peering between the two BGP peers. Some ISP communities
have tried to document acceptable specificity. This document does
not make any judgement on what the best approach is, it just notes
that there are existing practices on the Internet and recommends that
the reader refer to them. As an example, the RIPE community has
documented that, at the time of writing of this document, IPv4
prefixes longer than /24 and IPv6 prefixes longer than /48 are
generally neither announced nor accepted in the Internet [20] [21].
These values may change in the future.
6.1.4. Filtering Prefixes Belonging to the Local AS and Downstreams
A network SHOULD filter its own prefixes on peerings with all its
peers (inbound direction). This prevents local traffic (from a local
source to a local destination) from leaking over an external peering,
in case someone else is announcing the prefix over the Internet.
This also protects the infrastructure that may directly suffer if the
backbone's prefix is suddenly preferred over the Internet.
In some cases, for example, multihoming scenarios, such filters
SHOULD NOT be applied, as this would break the desired redundancy.
To an extent, such filters can also be configured on a network for
the prefixes of its downstreams in order to protect them, too. Such
filters must be defined with caution as they can break existing
redundancy mechanisms. For example, when an operator has a
multihomed customer, it should keep accepting the customer prefix
from its peers and upstreams. This will make it possible for the
customer to keep accessing its operator network (and other customers)
via the Internet even if the BGP peering between the customer and the
operator is down.
6.1.5. IXP LAN Prefixes
6.1.5.1. Network Security
When a network is present on an IXP and peers with other IXP members
over a common subnet (IXP LAN prefix), it SHOULD NOT accept more-
specific prefixes for the IXP LAN prefix from any of its external BGP
peers. Accepting these routes may create a black hole for
connectivity to the IXP LAN.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
If the IXP LAN prefix is accepted as an "exact match", care needs to
be taken to prevent other routers in the network from sending IXP
traffic towards the externally learned IXP LAN prefix (recursive
route lookup pointing into the wrong direction). This can be
achieved by preferring IGP routes over External BGP (EBGP), or by
using "BGP next-hop-self" on all routes learned on that IXP.
If the IXP LAN prefix is accepted at all, it SHOULD only be accepted
from the ASes that the IXP authorizes to announce it -- this will
usually be automatically achieved by filtering announcements using
the IRR database.
6.1.5.2. PMTUD and the Loose uRPF Problem
In order to have PMTUD working in the presence of loose uRPF, it is
necessary that all the networks that may source traffic that could
flow through the IXP (i.e., IXP members and their downstreams) have a
route for the IXP LAN prefix. This is necessary as "packet too big"
ICMP messages sent by IXP members' routers may be sourced using an
address of the IXP LAN prefix. In the presence of loose uRPF, this
ICMP packet is dropped if there is no route for the IXP LAN prefix or
a less specific route covering IXP LAN prefix.
In that case, any IXP member SHOULD make sure it has a route for the
IXP LAN prefix or a less specific prefix on all its routers and that
it announces the IXP LAN prefix or the less specific route (up to a
default route) to its downstreams. The announcements done for this
purpose SHOULD pass IRR-generated filters described in
Section 6.1.2.2.1 as well as "prefixes that are too specific" filters
described in Section 6.1.3. The easiest way to implement this is for
the IXP itself to take care of the origination of its prefix and
advertise it to all IXP members through a BGP peering. Most likely,
the BGP route servers would be used for this, and the IXP would send
its entire prefix, which would be equal to or less specific than the
IXP LAN prefix.
Appendix A gives an example of guidelines regarding IXP LAN prefix.
6.1.6. The Default Route
6.1.6.1. IPv4
Typically, the 0.0.0.0/0 prefix is not intended to be accepted or
advertised except in specific customer/provider configurations;
general filtering outside of these is RECOMMENDED.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
6.1.6.2. IPv6
Typically, the ::/0 prefix is not intended to be accepted or
advertised except in specific customer/provider configurations;
general filtering outside of these is RECOMMENDED.
6.2. Prefix Filtering Recommendations in Full Routing Networks
For networks that have the full Internet BGP table, some policies
should be applied on each BGP peer for received and advertised
routes. It is RECOMMENDED that each Autonomous System configures
rules for advertised and received routes at all its borders, as this
will protect the network and its peer even in case of
misconfiguration. The most commonly used filtering policy is
proposed in this section and uses prefix filters defined in
Section 6.1.
6.2.1. Filters with Internet Peers
6.2.1.1. Inbound Filtering
There are basically two options -- the loose one where no check will
be done against RIR allocations and the strict one where it will be
verified that announcements strictly conform to what is declared in
routing registries.
6.2.1.1.1. Inbound Filtering Loose Option
In this case, the following prefixes received from a BGP peer will be
filtered:
o prefixes that are not globally routable (Section 6.1.1)
o prefixes not allocated by IANA (IPv6 only) (Section 6.1.2.1)
o routes that are too specific (Section 6.1.3)
o prefixes belonging to the local AS (Section 6.1.4)
o IXP LAN prefixes (Section 6.1.5)
o the default route (Section 6.1.6)
6.2.1.1.2. Inbound Filtering Strict Option
In this case, filters are applied to make sure advertisements
strictly conform to what is declared in routing registries
(Section 6.1.2.2). Warning is given as registries are not always
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 14]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
accurate (prefixes missing, wrong information, etc.). This varies
across the registries and regions of the Internet. Before applying a
strict policy, the reader SHOULD check the impact on the filter and
make sure the solution is not worse than the problem.
Also, in case of script failure, each administrator may decide if all
routes are accepted or rejected depending on routing policy. While
accepting the routes during that time frame could break the BGP
routing security, rejecting them might re-route too much traffic on
transit peers, and could cause more harm than what a loose policy
would have done.
In addition to this, network administrators could apply the following
filters beforehand in case the routing registry that's used as the
source of information by the script is not fully trusted:
o prefixes that are not globally routable (Section 6.1.1)
o routes that are too specific (Section 6.1.3)
o prefixes belonging to the local AS (Section 6.1.4)
o IXP LAN prefixes (Section 6.1.5)
o the default route (Section 6.1.6)
6.2.1.2. Outbound Filtering
The configuration should ensure that only appropriate prefixes are
sent. These can be, for example, prefixes belonging to both the
network in question and its downstreams. This can be achieved by
using BGP communities, AS paths, or both. Also, it may be desirable
to add the following filters before any policy to avoid unwanted
route announcements due to bad configuration:
o Prefixes that are not globally routable (Section 6.1.1)
o Routes that are too specific (Section 6.1.3)
o IXP LAN prefixes (Section 6.1.5)
o The default route (Section 6.1.6)
If it is possible to list the prefixes to be advertised, then just
configuring the list of allowed prefixes and denying the rest is
sufficient.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 15]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
6.2.2. Filters with Customers
6.2.2.1. Inbound Filtering
The inbound policy with end customers is pretty straightforward: only
customer prefixes SHOULD be accepted, all others SHOULD be discarded.
The list of accepted prefixes can be manually specified, after having
verified that they are valid. This validation can be done with the
appropriate IP address management authorities.
The same rules apply when the customer is a network connecting other
customers (for example, a Tier 1 transit provider connecting service
providers). An exception is when the customer network applies strict
inbound/outbound prefix filtering, and there are too many prefixes
announced by that network to list them in the router configuration.
In that case, filters as in Section 6.2.1.1 can be applied.
6.2.2.2. Outbound Filtering
The outbound policy with customers may vary according to the routes
the customer wants to receive. In the simplest possible scenario,
the customer may want to receive only the default route; this can be
done easily by applying a filter with the default route only.
In case the customer wants to receive the full routing (if it is
multihomed or if it wants to have a view of the Internet table), the
following filters can be applied on the BGP peering:
o prefixes that are not globally routable (Section 6.1.1)
o routes that are too specific (Section 6.1.3)
o the default route (Section 6.1.6)
In some cases, the customer may desire to receive the default route
in addition to the full BGP table. This can be done by the provider
simply by removing the filter for the default route. As the default
route may not be present in the routing table, network administrators
may decide to originate it only for peerings where it has to be
advertised.
6.2.3. Filters with Upstream Providers
6.2.3.1. Inbound Filtering
If the full routing table is desired from the upstream, the prefix
filtering to apply is the same as the one for peers Section 6.2.1.1
with the exception of the default route. Sometimes, the default
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 16]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
route (in addition to the full BGP table) can be desired from an
upstream provider. If the upstream provider is supposed to announce
only the default route, a simple filter will be applied to accept
only the default prefix and nothing else.
6.2.3.2. Outbound Filtering
The filters to be applied would most likely not differ much from the
ones applied for Internet peers (Section 6.2.1.2). However,
different policies could be applied if a particular upstream should
not provide transit to all the prefixes.
6.3. Prefix Filtering Recommendations for Leaf Networks
6.3.1. Inbound Filtering
The leaf network will deploy the filters corresponding to the routes
it is requesting from its upstream. If a default route is requested,
a simple inbound filter can be applied to accept only the default
route (Section 6.1.6). If the leaf network is not capable of listing
the prefixes because there are too many (for example, if it requires
the full Internet routing table), then it should configure the
following filters to avoid receiving bad announcements from its
upstream:
o prefixes not routable (Section 6.1.1)
o routes that are too specific (Section 6.1.3)
o prefixes belonging to local AS (Section 6.1.4)
o the default route (Section 6.1.6) depending on whether or not the
route is requested
6.3.2. Outbound Filtering
A leaf network will most likely have a very straightforward policy:
it will only announce its local routes. It can also configure the
prefix filters described in Section 6.2.1.2 to avoid announcing
invalid routes to its upstream provider.
7. BGP Route Flap Dampening
The BGP route flap dampening mechanism makes it possible to give
penalties to routes each time they change in the BGP routing table.
Initially, this mechanism was created to protect the entire Internet
from multiple events that impact a single network. Studies have
shown that implementations of BGP route flap dampening could cause
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 17]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
more harm than benefit; therefore, in the past, the RIPE community
has recommended against using BGP route flap dampening [19]. Later,
studies were conducted to propose new route flap dampening thresholds
in order to make the solution "usable"; see RFC 7196 [6] and [22] (in
which RIPE reviewed its recommendations). This document RECOMMENDS
following IETF and RIPE recommendations and using BGP route flap
dampening with the adjusted configured thresholds.
8. Maximum Prefixes on a Peering
It is RECOMMENDED to configure a limit on the number of routes to be
accepted from a peer. The following rules are generally RECOMMENDED:
o From peers, it is RECOMMENDED to have a limit lower than the
number of routes in the Internet. This will shut down the BGP
peering if the peer suddenly advertises the full table. Network
administrators can also configure different limits for each peer,
according to the number of routes they are supposed to advertise,
plus some headroom to permit growth.
o From upstreams that provide full routing, it is RECOMMENDED to
have a limit higher than the number of routes in the Internet. A
limit is still useful in order to protect the network (and in
particular, the routers' memory) if too many routes are sent by
the upstream. The limit should be chosen according to the number
of routes that can actually be handled by routers.
It is important to regularly review the limits that are configured as
the Internet can quickly change over time. Some vendors propose
mechanisms to have two thresholds: while the higher number specified
will shut down the peering, the first threshold will only trigger a
log and can be used to passively adjust limits based on observations
made on the network.
9. AS Path Filtering
This section lists the RECOMMENDED practices when processing BGP AS
paths.
o Network administrators SHOULD accept from customers only 2-byte or
4-byte AS paths containing ASNs belonging to (or authorized to
transit through) the customer. If network administrators cannot
build and generate filtering expressions to implement this, they
SHOULD consider accepting only path lengths relevant to the type
of customer they have (as in, if these customers are a leaf or
have customers of their own) and SHOULD try to discourage
excessive prepending in such paths. This loose policy could be
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 18]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
combined with filters for specific 2-byte or 4-byte AS paths that
must not be accepted if advertised by the customer, such as
upstream transit providers or peer ASNs.
o Network administrators SHOULD NOT accept prefixes with private AS
numbers in the AS path unless the prefixes are from customers. An
exception could occur when an upstream is offering some particular
service like black-hole origination based on a private AS number:
in that case, prefixes SHOULD be accepted. Customers should be
informed by their upstream in order to put in place ad hoc policy
to use such services.
o Network administrators SHOULD NOT accept prefixes when the first
AS number in the AS path is not the one of the peer's unless the
peering is done toward a BGP route server [17] (for example, on an
IXP) with transparent AS path handling. In that case, this
verification needs to be deactivated, as the first AS number will
be the one of an IXP member, whereas the peer AS number will be
the one of the BGP route server.
o Network administrators SHOULD NOT advertise prefixes with a
nonempty AS path unless they intend to provide transit for these
prefixes.
o Network administrators SHOULD NOT advertise prefixes with upstream
AS numbers in the AS path to their peering AS unless they intend
to provide transit for these prefixes.
o Private AS numbers are conventionally used in contexts that are
"private" and SHOULD NOT be used in advertisements to BGP peers
that are not party to such private arrangements, and they SHOULD
be stripped when received from BGP peers that are not party to
such private arrangements.
o Network administrators SHOULD NOT override BGP's default behavior,
i.e., they should not accept their own AS number in the AS path.
When considering an exception, the impact (which may be severe on
routing) should be studied carefully.
AS path filtering should be further analyzed when ASN renumbering is
done. Such an operation is common, and mechanisms exist to allow
smooth ASN migration [28]. The usual migration technique, local to a
router, consists in modifying the AS path so it is presented to a
peer with the previous ASN, as if no renumbering was done. This
makes it possible to change the ASN of a router without reconfiguring
all EBGP peers at the same time (as that operation would require
synchronization with all peers attached to that router). During this
renumbering operation, the rules described above may be adjusted.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 19]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
10. Next-Hop Filtering
If peering on a shared network, like an IXP, BGP can advertise
prefixes with a third-party next hop, thus directing packets not to
the peer announcing the prefix but somewhere else.
This is a desirable property for BGP route-server setups [17], where
the route server will relay routing information but has neither the
capacity nor the desire to receive the actual data packets. So, the
BGP route server will announce prefixes with a next-hop setting
pointing to the router that originally announced the prefix to the
route server.
In direct peerings between ISPs, this is undesirable, as one of the
peers could trick the other one into sending packets into a black
hole (unreachable next hop) or to an unsuspecting third party who
would then have to carry the traffic. Especially for black-holing,
the root cause of the problem is hard to see without inspecting BGP
prefixes at the receiving router of the IXP.
Therefore, an inbound route policy SHOULD be applied on IXP peerings
in order to set the next hop for accepted prefixes to the BGP peer IP
address (belonging to the IXP LAN) that sent the prefix (which is
what "next-hop-self" would enforce on the sending side).
This policy SHOULD NOT be used on route-server peerings or on
peerings where network administrators intentionally permit the other
side to send third-party next hops.
This policy also SHOULD be adjusted if the best practice of Remote
Triggered Black Holing (aka RTBH as described in RFC 6666 [13]) is
implemented. In that case, network administrators would apply a
well-known BGP next hop for routes they want to filter (if an
Internet threat is observed from/to this route, for example). This
well-known next hop will be statically routed to a null interface.
In combination with a unicast RPF check, this will discard traffic
from and toward this prefix. Peers can exchange information about
black holes using, for example, particular BGP communities. Network
administrators could propagate black-hole information to their peers
using an agreed-upon BGP community: when receiving a route with that
community, a configured policy could change the next hop in order to
create the black hole.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 20]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
11. BGP Community Scrubbing
Optionally, we can consider the following rules on BGP AS paths:
o Network administrators SHOULD scrub inbound communities with their
number in the high-order bits, and allow only those communities
that customers/peers can use as a signaling mechanism
o Networks administrators SHOULD NOT remove other communities
applied on received routes (communities not removed after
application of the previous statement). In particular, they
SHOULD keep original communities when they apply a community.
Customers might need them to communicate with upstream providers.
In particular, network administrators SHOULD NOT (generally)
remove the no-export community, as it is usually announced by
their peer for a certain purpose.
12. Security Considerations
This document is entirely about BGP operational security. It depicts
best practices that one should adopt to secure BGP infrastructure:
protecting BGP router and BGP sessions, adopting consistent BGP
prefix and AS path filters, and configuring other options to secure
the BGP network.
This document does not aim to describe existing BGP implementations,
their potential vulnerabilities, or ways they handle errors. It does
not detail how protection could be enforced against attack techniques
using crafted packets.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[2] Rekhter,, Y., Li,, T., and S. Hares,, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[3] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola,, P., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)", RFC
5082, October 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 21]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
[4] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication
Option", RFC 5925, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[5] Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, January
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6811>.
[6] Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O.
Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable", RFC 7196, May
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7196>.
13.2. Informative References
[7] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2385>.
[8] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", RFC 2827, May 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[9] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", RFC 3704, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[10] Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky, "Routing
Policy Specification Language next generation (RPSLng)", RFC
4012, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4012>.
[11] Dugal, D., Pignataro, C., and R. Dunn, "Protecting the Router
Control Plane", RFC 6192, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6192>.
[12] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support Secure
Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.
[13] Hilliard, N. and D. Freedman, "A Discard Prefix for IPv6", RFC
6666, August 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6666>.
[14] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of BGP,
LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and
Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC
6952, May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 22]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
[15] Bush, R., "Origin Validation Operation Based on the Resource
Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", RFC 7115, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7115>.
[16] Kent, S. and A. Chi, "Threat Model for BGP Path Security", RFC
7132, February 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7132>.
[17] Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
"Internet Exchange Route Server", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-06, December 2014.
[18] Karrenberg, D., "RIPE-351 - De-Bogonising New Address Blocks",
October 2005.
[19] Smith, P. and C. Panigl, "RIPE-378 - RIPE Routing Working Group
Recommendations On Route-flap Damping", May 2006.
[20] Smith, P., Evans, R., and M. Hughes, "RIPE-399 - RIPE Routing
Working Group Recommendations on Route Aggregation", December
2006.
[21] Smith, P. and R. Evans, "RIPE-532 - RIPE Routing Working Group
Recommendations on IPv6 Route Aggregation", November 2011.
[22] Smith, P., Bush, R., Kuhne, M., Pelsser, C., Maennel, O.,
Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and R. Evans, "RIPE-580 - RIPE
Routing Working Group Recommendations On Route-flap Damping",
January 2013.
[23] IANA, "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry>.
[24] IANA, "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry>.
[25] IANA, "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.
[26] IANA, "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space>.
[27] Merit Network Inc., "Merit RADb", <http://www.radb.net>.
[28] George, W. and S. Amante, "Autonomous System (AS) Migration
Features and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH Attribute", Work
in Progress, draft-ga-idr-as-migration-03, January 2014.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 23]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
[29] Bellovin, S., Bush, R., and D. Ward, "Security Requirements for
BGP Path Validation", RFC 7353, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7353>.
[30] "IRRToolSet project page", <http://irrtoolset.isc.org>.
[31] Cooper, D., Heilman, E., Brogle, K., Reyzin, L., and S.
Goldberg, "On the Risk of Misbehaving RPKI Authorities",
<http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/hotRPKI.pdf>.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 24]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
Appendix A. IXP LAN Prefix Filtering - Example
An IXP in the RIPE region is allocated an IPv4 /22 prefix by RIPE NCC
(X.Y.0.0/22 in this example) and uses a /23 of this /22 for the IXP
LAN (let say X.Y.0.0/23). This IXP LAN prefix is the one used by IXP
members to configure EBGP peerings. The IXP could also be allocated
an AS number (AS64496 in our example).
Any IXP member SHOULD make sure it filters prefixes more specific
than X.Y.0.0/23 from all its EBGP peers. If it received X.Y.0.0/24
or X.Y.1.0/24 this could seriously impact its routing.
The IXP SHOULD originate X.Y.0.0/22 and advertise it to its members
through an EBGP peering (most likely from its BGP route servers,
configured with AS64496).
The IXP members SHOULD accept the IXP prefix only if it passes the
IRR generated filters (see Section 6.1.2.2.1)
IXP members SHOULD then advertise X.Y.0.0/22 prefix to their
downstreams. This announce would pass IRR based filters as it is
originated by the IXP.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following people for their
comments and support: Marc Blanchet, Ron Bonica, Randy Bush, David
Freedman, Wesley George, Daniel Ginsburg, David Groves, Mike Hugues,
Joel Jaeggli, Tim Kleefass, Warren Kumari, Jacques Latour, Lionel
Morand, Jerome Nicolle, Hagen Paul Pfeifer, Thomas Pinaud, Carlos
Pignataro, Jean Rebiffe, Donald Smith, Kotikalapudi Sriram, Matjaz
Straus, Tony Tauber, Gunter Van de Velde, Sebastian Wiesinger, and
Matsuzaki Yoshinobu.
The authors would like to thank once again Gunter Van de Velde for
presenting the document at several IETF meetings in various working
groups, indeed helping dissemination of this document and gathering
of precious feedback.
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 25]
RFC 7454 BGP OPSEC February 2015
Authors' Addresses
Jerome Durand
Cisco Systems, Inc.
11 rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92782 CEDEX
France
EMail: jerduran@cisco.com
Ivan Pepelnjak
NIL Data Communications
Tivolska 48
Ljubljana 1000
Slovenia
EMail: ip@ipspace.net
Gert Doering
SpaceNet AG
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14
Muenchen D-80807
Germany
EMail: gert@space.net
Durand, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 26]