Route Leak Prevention using Roles in Update and Open messages
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15
Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (idr WG) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Alexander Azimov , Eugene Bogomazov , Randy Bush , Keyur Patel , Kotikalapudi Sriram | ||
Last updated | 2021-01-16 | ||
Replaces | draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy | ||
Stream | Internent Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
Formats | plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Susan Hares | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2021-01-13) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Publication Requested | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
Send notices to | Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> |
Network Working Group A. Azimov Internet-Draft Qrator Labs & Yandex Intended status: Standards Track E. Bogomazov Expires: July 20, 2021 Qrator Labs R. Bush Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus, Inc. K. Patel Arrcus K. Sriram USA NIST January 16, 2021 Route Leak Prevention using Roles in Update and Open messages draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15 Abstract Route leaks are the propagation of BGP prefixes which violate assumptions of BGP topology relationships; e.g. passing a route learned from one lateral peer to another lateral peer or a transit provider, passing a route learned from one transit provider to another transit provider or a lateral peer. Existing approaches to leak prevention rely on marking routes by operator configuration, with no check that the configuration corresponds to that of the eBGP neighbor, or enforcement that the two eBGP speakers agree on the relationship. This document enhances BGP OPEN to establish agreement of the (peer, customer, provider, Route Server, Route Server client) relationship of two neighboring eBGP speakers to enforce appropriate configuration on both sides. Propagated routes are then marked with an Only to Customer (OTC) attribute according to the agreed relationship, allowing both prevention and detection of route leaks. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 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 Azimov, et al. Expires July 20, 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Route Leak Prevention January 2021 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 July 20, 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Peering Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. BGP Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. BGP Role Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Role correctness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Strict mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. BGP Only to Customer (OTC) Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Show full document text