[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

IDR and SIDR                                                   K. Sriram
Internet-Draft                                             D. Montgomery
Intended status: Standards Track                                 US NIST
Expires: September 7, 2017                                    B. Dickson

                                                                K. Patel
                                                                  Arrcus
                                                          A. Robachevsky
                                                        Internet Society
                                                           March 6, 2017


        Methods for Detection and Mitigation of BGP Route Leaks
           draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-06

Abstract

   RFC 7908 provides a definition of the route leak problem, and also
   enumerates several types of route leaks.  This document first
   examines which of those route-leak types are detected and mitigated
   by the existing origin validation (OV) [RFC 6811].  It is recognized
   that OV offers a limited detection and mitigation capability against
   route leaks.  This document specifies enhancements that significantly
   extend the route-leak prevention, detection, and mitigation
   capabilities of BGP.  One solution component involves intra-AS
   messaging from ingress router to egress router using a BGP Community
   or Attribute.  This intra-AS messaging prevents the AS from causing
   route leaks.  Another solution component involves carrying a per-hop
   route-leak protection (RLP) field in BGP updates.  The RLP fields are
   proposed to be carried in a new optional transitive attribute, called
   BGP RLP attribute.  The RLP attribute helps with detection and
   mitigation of route leaks at ASes downstream from the leaking AS.

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 http://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."




Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Related Prior Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Do Origin Validation and BGPsec Assist in Route-Leak
       Detection?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Mechanisms for Prevention, Detection and Mitigation of Route
       Leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Ascertaining Peering Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Prevention of Route Leaks at Local AS: Intra-AS Messaging   7
       4.2.1.  Non-Transitive BGP Community for Intra-AS Messaging .   7
       4.2.2.  Non-Transitive BGP pRLP Attribute for Intra-AS
               Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Route-Leak Protection (RLP) Field Encoding by Sending
           Router  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  BGP RLP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.2.  Carrying RLP Field Values in the BGPsec Flags . . . .  11
     4.4.  Recommended Actions at a Receiving Router for Detection
           of Route Leaks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.5.  Possible Actions at a Receiving Router for Mitigation . .  12
   5.  Stopgap Solution when Only Origin Validation is Deployed  . .  12
   6.  Design Rationale and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Is route-leak solution without cryptographic protection a
           serious attack vector?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Combining results of route-leak detection, OV and BGPsec
           validation for path selection decision  . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  Are there cases when valley-free violations can be
           considered legitimate?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.4.  Comparison with other methods (routing security BCPs) . .  16
     6.5.  Per-Hop RLP Field or Single RLP Flag per Update?  . . . .  16
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   [RFC7908] provides a definition of the route leak problem, and also
   enumerates several types of route leaks.  This document first
   examines which of those route-leak types are detected and mitigated
   by the existing Origin Validation (OV) [RFC6811] method.  OV and
   BGPsec path validation [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] together offer
   mechanisms to protect against re-originations and hijacks of IP
   prefixes as well as man-in-the-middle (MITM) AS path modifications.
   Route leaks (see [RFC7908] and references cited at the back) are
   another type of vulnerability in the global BGP routing system
   against which OV offers only partial protection.  BGPsec (i.e. path
   validation) provides cryptographic protection for some aspects of BGP
   update messages, but in its current form BGPsec doesn't offer any
   protection against route leaks.

   For the types of route leaks enumerated in [RFC7908], where the OV
   method does not offer a solution, this document specifies
   enhancements that significantly extend the route-leak prevention,
   detection, and mitigation capabilities of BGP.  One solution
   component involves intra-AS messaging from ingress router to egress
   router using a BGP Community or Attribute.  This intra-AS messaging
   prevents the AS from causing route leaks.  Another solution component
   involves carrying a per-hop route-leak protection (RLP) field in BGP
   updates.  The RLP fields are proposed to be carried in a new optional
   transitive attribute, called BGP RLP attribute.  The RLP attribute
   helps with detection and mitigation of route leaks at ASes downstream
   from the leaking AS.

   The solution is meant to be initially implemented as an enhancement
   of BGP without requiring BGPsec.  However, when BGPsec is deployed in
   the future, the solution can be incorporated in BGPsec, enabling
   cryptographic protection for the RLP field.  That would be one way of
   implementing the proposed solution in a secure way.  It is not
   claimed that the solution detects all possible types of route leaks
   but it detects several types, especially considering some significant
   route-leak occurrences that have been observed in recent years.  The
   document also includes a stopgap method (in Section 5) for detection
   and mitigation of route leaks for an intermediate phase when OV is
   deployed but BGP protocol on the wire is unchanged.




Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


2.  Related Prior Work

   A mechanism embodied in the proposed solution 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
   said basic idea and mechanism dates back to at least the 1980's.
   Some examples of prior work are: (1) Information flow rules described
   in [proceedings-sixth-ietf] (see pp. 195-196); (2) Link Type
   described in [RFC1105-obsolete] (see pp. 4-5); (3) Hierarchical
   Recording described in [draft-kunzinger-idrp-ISO10747-01] (see
   Section 6.3.1.12).  The problem of route leaks and possible solution
   mechanisms based on encoding peering-link type information, e.g.  P2C
   (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 the current document 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 the current document 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 4.3.2).

3.  Do Origin Validation and BGPsec Assist in Route-Leak Detection?

   Referring to the enumeration of route leaks discussed in [RFC7908],
   Table 1 summarizes the route-leak detection capability offered by OV
   and BGPsec for different types of route leaks.  (Note: Prefix
   filtering is not considered here in this table.  Please see
   Section 5.)

   A detailed explanation of the contents of Table 1 is as follows.  It
   is readily observed that route leaks of Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not
   detected by OV or BGPsec in its current form.  Clearly, Type 5 route
   leak involves re-origination or hijacking, and hence can be detected
   by OV.  In the case of Type 5 route leak, there would be no existing
   ROAs to validate a re-originated prefix or more specific, but instead
   a covering ROA would normally exist with the legitimate AS, and hence
   the update will be considered Invalid by OV.





Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Type of Route Leak              | Current State of Detection      |
   |                                 | Coverage                        |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Type 1: Hairpin Turn with Full  | Neither OV nor BGPsec (in its   |
   | Prefix                          | current form) detects Type 1.   |
   | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- |
   | Type 2: Lateral ISP-ISP-ISP     | Neither OV nor BGPsec (in its   |
   | Leak                            | current form) detects Type 2.   |
   | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- |
   | Type 3: Leak of Transit-        | Neither OV nor BGPsec (in its   |
   | Provider Prefixes to Peer       | current form) detects Type 3.   |
   | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- |
   | Type 4: Leak of Peer Prefixes   | Neither OV nor BGPsec (in its   |
   | to Transit Provider             | current form) detects Type 4.   |
   | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- |
   | Type 5: Prefix Re-Origination   | OV detects Type 5.              |
   | with Data Path to Legitimate    |                                 |
   | Origin                          |                                 |
   | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- |
   | Type 6: Accidental Leak of      | For internal prefixes never     |
   | Internal Prefixes and More      | meant to be routed on the       |
   | Specifics                       | Internet, OV helps detect their |
   |                                 | leak; they might either have no |
   |                                 | covering ROA or have an AS0-ROA |
   |                                 | to always filter them. In the   |
   |                                 | case of accidental leak of more |
   |                                 | specifics, OV may offer some    |
   |                                 | detection due to ROA maxLength. |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+

     Table 1: Examination of Route-Leak Detection Capability of Origin
               Validation and Current BGPsec Path Validation

   In the case of Type 6 leaks involving internal prefixes that are not
   meant to be routed in the Internet, they are likely to be detected by
   OV.  That is because such prefixes might either have no covering ROA
   or have an AS0-ROA to always filter them.  In the case of Type 6
   leaks that are due to accidental leak of more specifics, they may be
   detected due to violation of ROA maxLength.  BGPsec (i.e. path
   validation) in its current form does not detect Type 6.  However,
   route leaks of Type 6 are least problematic due to the following
   reasons.  In the case of leak of more specifics, the offending AS is
   itself the legitimate destination of the leaked more-specific
   prefixes.  Hence, in most cases of this type, the data traffic is
   neither misrouted not denied service.  Also, leaked announcements of
   Type 6 are short-lived and typically withdrawn quickly following the
   announcements.  Further, the MaxPrefix limit may kick-in in some



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   receiving routers and that helps limit the propagation of sometimes
   large number of leaked routes of Type 6.

   Realistically, BGPsec may take a much longer time being deployed than
   OV.  Hence solution proposals for route leaks should consider both
   scenarios: (A) OV only (without BGPsec) and (B) OV plus BGPsec.
   Assuming an initial scenario A, and based on the above discussion and
   Table 1, it is evident that the solution method should focus
   primarily on route leaks of Types 1, 2, 3, and 4.

4.  Mechanisms for Prevention, Detection and Mitigation of Route Leaks

   There are two considerations for route leaks: (1) Prevention of route
   leaks from a local AS, and (2) Detection and mitigation of route
   leaks in ASes that are downstream from the leaking AS.

   In Section 4.1, the method of ascertaining peering relationship per
   prefix is described.  Section 4.2 describes intra-AS messaging
   methods for prevention of route leaks from local AS.  Section 4.3 and
   Section 4.4 describe a simple addition to BGP that facilitates
   detection and mitigation of route leaks of Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 (see
   Section 3) at an downstream AS from the leaking AS.

4.1.  Ascertaining Peering Relationship

   There are four possible peering relationships (i.e. roles) an AS can
   have with a neighbor AS: (1) Provider: transit-provider for all
   prefixes exchanged, (2) Customer: customer for all prefixes
   exchanged, (3) Lateral Peer: lateral peer (i.e. non-transit) for all
   prefixes exchanged, and (4) Complex: different relationships for
   different sets of prefixes [I-D.ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy] [Luckie].
   On a per-prefix basis, the peering role types simplify to provider,
   customer, or lateral peer.

   Operators rely on some form of out-of-band (OOB) (i.e. external to
   BGP) communication to exchange information about their peering
   relationship, AS number, interface IP address, etc.  If the
   relationship is complex, the OOB communication also includes the sets
   of prefixes for which they have different roles.
   [I-D.ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy] introduces a method of confirming the
   BGP Role during BGP OPEN messaging.  It defines a new BGP Role
   capability, which helps in re-confirming the relationship.  BGP Role
   does not replace the OOB communication since it relies on the OOB
   communication to set the role type in the BGP OPEN message.  However,
   BGP Role provides a means to double check, and if there is a
   contradiction detected via the BGP Role messages, then a Role
   Mismatch Notification is sent [I-D.ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy].




Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   When the BGP relationship information has been correctly exchanged
   (i.e. free of contradictions) including the sets of prefixes with
   different roles (if complex), then this information SHOULD be used to
   set the role per-prefix with each peer.  For example, if the local
   AS's role is Provider with a neighbor AS, then the per-prefix role is
   set to 'Provider' for all prefixes sent to the neighbor, and set to
   'Customer' for all prefixes received from the neighbor.

4.2.  Prevention of Route Leaks at Local AS: Intra-AS Messaging

   Note: The intra-AS messaging for route leak prevention can be done
   using non-transitive BGP Community or Attribute.  Both options are
   described below; one of them will be chosen after IDR working group
   consensus is established.

4.2.1.  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.  Routes that
   the AS originates directly are tagged with similar origin communities
   when they are redistributed into BGP from static, IGP, etc.  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.  Route policy is applied to eBGP sessions
   based on what set of routes they should receive (transit, full
   routes, internal-only, default-only, etc.).  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.

   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 made it into
   the routing table (i.e.  RIB) 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



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   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.

4.2.2.  Non-Transitive BGP pRLP Attribute for Intra-AS Messaging

   It is possible to use an optional non-transitive BGP Attribute
   instead of the Community described above for intra-AS messaging for
   route leak prevention.  The following description would be used in
   case the IDR working group decides on using a BGP Attribute.

   A new optional non-transitive BGP Attribute called Preventive Route
   Leak Protection (pRLP) is used.  The attribute type code for the pRLP
   attribute is to be assigned by IANA.  The length of this attribute is
   0 as it is used only as a flag.

   Ingress (receiving) router action: The decision to set or not set the
   pRLP flag is made by a receiving router upon a route ingress.  The
   flag is set when the route is received from a provider or a lateral
   peer.  The flag is not set when the route is received from a
   customer.  When the relationship is complex, the flag is set based on
   the per-prefix peering role information discussed in Section 4.1.

   Egress (sending) router action: A sending router is allowed to send a
   route without the pRLP flag to any neighbor (transit-provider,
   customer, lateral peer).  However, if the pRLP flag is present, then
   the route MUST NOT be sent to a transit-provider or a lateral peer.

   An AS that follows the above set of receiver (ingress) and sender
   (egress) actions, prevents itself from causing route leaks.

4.3.  Route-Leak Protection (RLP) Field Encoding by Sending Router

   This section, Section 4.4 and Section 4.5 describe methods of
   detection and mitigation of route leaks in an AS downstream from the
   leaking AS.

   The key principle is that, in the event of a route leak, a receiving
   router in a transit-provider AS (e.g. referring to Figure 1, ISP2
   (AS2) router) should be able to detect from the update message that
   its customer AS (e.g.  AS3 in Figure 1) SHOULD NOT have forwarded the
   update (towards the transit-provider AS).  This means that at least
   one of the ASes in the AS path of the update has indicated that it
   sent the update to its customer or lateral (i.e. non-transit) peer,
   but forbade any subsequent 'Up' forwarding (i.e. from a customer AS
   to its transit-provider AS).  For this purpose, a Route-Leak
   Protection (RLP) field to be set by a sending router is proposed to
   be used for each AS hop.



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


                                      /\              /\
                                       \ route-leak(P)/
                                        \ propagated /
                                         \          /
              +------------+    peer    +------------+
        ______| ISP1 (AS1) |----------->|  ISP2 (AS2)|---------->
       /       ------------+  prefix(P) +------------+ route-leak(P)
      | prefix |          \   update      /\        \  propagated
       \  (P)  /           \              /          \
        -------   prefix(P) \            /            \
                     update  \          /              \
                              \        /route-leak(P)  \/
                              \/      /
                           +---------------+
                           | customer(AS3) |
                           +---------------+


        Figure 1: Illustration of the basic notion of a route leak.

   For the purpose of route-leak detection and mitigation proposed in
   this document, the RLP field value SHOULD be set to one of two values
   as follows:

   o  0: This is the default value (i.e. "nothing specified"),

   o  1: This is the 'Do not Propagate Up or Lateral' indication; sender
      indicating that the route SHOULD NOT be forwarded 'Up' towards a
      transit-provider AS or to a lateral (i.e. non-transit) peer AS.

   The RLP indications SHOULD be set on a per prefix basis.  This is
   because some peering relations between neighbors can be complex (see
   Section 4.1).  Further, the RLP indications are set on a per-hop
   (i.e. per AS) basis.

   There are two different scenarios when a sending AS SHOULD set value
   1 in the RLP field: (a) when sending the update to a customer AS, and
   (b) when sending the update to a lateral peer (i.e. non-transit) AS.
   In essence, in both scenarios, the intent of RLP = 1 is that the
   neighbor AS and any receiving AS along the subsequent AS path SHOULD
   NOT forward the update 'Up' towards its (receiving AS's) transit-
   provider AS or laterally towards its peer (i.e. non-transit) AS.

   When sending an update 'Up' to a transit-provider AS, the RLP
   encoding SHOULD be set to the default value of 0.  When a sending AS
   sets the RLP encoding to 0, it is indicating to the receiving AS that
   the update can be propagated in any direction (i.e. towards transit-
   provider, customer, or lateral peer).



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   The two-state specification in the RLP field (as described above)
   works for detection and mitigation of route leaks of Types 1, 2, 3,
   and 4 which are the focus here (see Section 4.4 and Section 4.5).

   An AS MUST NOT rewrite/reset the values set by any preceding ASes in
   their respective RLP fields.

   The proposed RLP encoding SHOULD be carried in BGP-4 [RFC4271]
   updates in a new BGP optional transitive attribute (see
   Section 4.3.1).  In BGPsec, it SHOULD be carried in the Flags field
   (see Section 4.3.2).

4.3.1.  BGP RLP Attribute

   The BGP RLP attribute is a new BGP optional transitive attribute.
   The attribute type code for the RLP attribute is to be assigned by
   IANA.  The length field of this attribute is 2 octets.  The value
   field of the RLP attribute is defined as a set of one or more pairs
   of ASN (4 octets) and RLP (one octet) fields as described below
   (Figure 2).


   +-----------------------+ -\
   | ASN: N                |   |
   +-----------------------+    >  (Most recently added)
   | RLP: N                |   |
   +-----------------------+ -/
    ...........
   +-----------------------+ -\
   | ASN: 1                |   |
   +-----------------------+    >  (Least recently added)
   | RLP: 1                |   |
   +-----------------------+ -/


                    Figure 2: BGP RLP Attribute format.

   The RLP Attribute value is a sequence of these two components (see
   Figure 2):

   ASN: Four octets encoding the public registered AS number of a BGP
   speaker.

   RLP Field: One octet encoding the RLP Field bits.  The value of the
   RLP Field octet can be 0 (decimal) or 1 (decimal) as described above
   in Section 4.3.1.  Its usage will be further discussed in subsequent
   sections.




Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   If all ASes in the AS_PATH of a route are upgraded to participate in
   RLP, then the ASNs in the RLP TLV in Figure 2 will correspond one-to-
   one with sequence of ASes in the AS_PATH (excluding prepends).  If
   some ASes do not participate, then one or more {ASN, RLP} tuples may
   be missing in the RLP attribute relative to the AS_PATH.

4.3.2.  Carrying RLP Field Values in the BGPsec Flags

   In BGPsec enabled routers, the RLP encoding SHOULD be accommodated in
   the existing Flags field in BGPsec updates.  The Flags field is part
   of the Secure_Path Segment in BGPsec updates
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol].  It is one octet long, and one Flags
   field is available for each AS hop, and currently only the first bit
   is used in BGPsec.  So there are 7 bits that are currently unused in
   the Flags field.  One of these bits can be designated for the RLP
   field value (see Section 4.3.1).  This bit can be set to 0 when the
   RLP Field value is 0 and set to 1 when the RLP Field value is 1.
   Since the BGPsec protocol specification requires a sending AS to
   include the Flags field in the data that are signed over, the RLP
   field for each hop (assuming it would be part of the Flags field as
   described) will be protected under the sending AS's signature.

4.4.  Recommended Actions at a Receiving Router for Detection of Route
      Leaks

   The following receiver algorithm is RECOMMENDED for detecting route
   leaks:

   A receiving router MUST mark an update as a 'Route Leak' if ALL of
   the following conditions hold true:

   1.  The update is received from a customer or lateral peer AS.

   2.  The update has the RLP Field set to 1 (i.e.  'Do not Propagate Up
       or Lateral') indication for one or more hops (excluding the most
       recent) in the AS path.

   The reason for stating "excluding the most recent" in the above
   algorithm is as follows.  An ISP should look at RLP values set by
   ASes preceding the immediate sending AS in order to ascertain a leak.
   The receiving router already knows that the most recent hop in the
   update is from its customer or lateral-peer AS to itself, and it does
   not need to rely on the RLP field value set by that AS (i.e the
   immediate neighbor AS in the AS path) for detection of route leaks.

   If the RLP encoding is secured by BGPsec (see Section 4.3) and hence
   protected against tampering by intermediate ASes, then there would be




Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   added certainty in the route-leak detection algorithm described above
   (see discussions in Section 6.1 and Section 6.2).

4.5.  Possible Actions at a Receiving Router for Mitigation

   After applying the above detection algorithm, a receiving router may
   use any policy-based algorithm of its own choosing to mitigate any
   detected route leaks.  An example receiver algorithm for mitigating a
   route leak is as follows:

   o  If an update from a customer or lateral peer AS is marked as a
      'Route Leak' (see Section 4.4), then the receiving router SHOULD
      prefer an alternate unmarked route.

   o  If no alternate unmarked route is available, then a route marked
      as a 'Route Leak' MAY be accepted.

   A basic principle here is that if an AS receives and marks a customer
   route as 'Route Leak', then the AS should override the "prefer
   customer route" policy, and instead prefer an alternate 'clean' route
   learned from another customer, a lateral peer, or a transit provider.
   This can be implemented by adjusting the local preference for the
   routes in consideration.

5.  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:

   o  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.)

   o  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.

   o  ISP creates a list of all the prefixes (Cust_Prfx_List) that are
      contained in any of the ROAs in Cust_ROA_List.

   o  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.



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   o  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 with regard to 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 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 [draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf] can be helpful (see
   discussion in Section 6.4).

   Another technique based on AS_PATH filters is described in
   [Snijders].  This method is applicable to very large ISPs (i.e. big
   networks) 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).

6.  Design Rationale and Discussion

   This section provides design justifications for the methodology
   specified in Section 4, and also answers some questions that are
   anticipated or have been raised in the IETF IDR and SIDR working
   group meetings.

6.1.  Is route-leak solution without cryptographic protection a serious
      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 serious 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



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   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
   filters [RFC7454].  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.









Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


6.2.  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 6.1).

6.3.  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.  In particular, 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
   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 in the methodology described in this document
   is that the Route-Leak Protection (RLP) encoding is per prefix.  So



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   the proposed 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 said leaks would be much less
   likely to propagate from one large participating ISP to another.

6.4.  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, AS operators signal for each route
   propagated, if it SHOULD NOT be subsequently propagated to a transit
   provider or peer.

   AS path based Outbound Route Filter (ORF) described in
   [draft-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.

6.5.  Per-Hop RLP Field or Single RLP Flag per Update?

   The route-leak detection and mitigation mechanism described in this
   document 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



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   customer or lateral peer (see Section 4.3) and Section 4.3.1).  No AS
   (if operating correctly) would rewrite the RLP Field set by any
   preceding AS.

   Method B - 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 B, consider the example illustrated in
   Figure 3.  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 4.5).  If there is no alternative, then a
   transit-provider may propagate a marked update from a customer.  In
   this example, multi-homed AS4 leaks a route received for prefix Q
   from transit-provider AS3 to transit-provider AS5.


                        +-----------+  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 3: Example for comparison of Method A vs. Method B




Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   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 B 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 B).  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
   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 B
   does not facilitate this kind of more rational decision process.
   With Method B, 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 B.

   Further, for detection and notification of neighbor AS's non-
   compliance, Method A (per-hop RLP) is better than Method B (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 also AS2 would alert AS1 about lack
   of compliance (when Method A is used).  With Method B, the alerting
   process may not be as expeditious.

7.  Security Considerations

   The proposed Route-Leak Protection (RLP) field requires cryptographic
   protection in order to prevent malicious route leaks.  Since it is
   proposed that the RLP field be included in the Flags field in the



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   Secure_Path Segment in BGPsec updates, the cryptographic security
   mechanisms in BGPsec are expected to also apply to the RLP field.
   The reader is therefore directed to the security considerations
   provided in [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol].

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to register a new optional, non-transitive BGP Path
   Attribute, named "Preventive Route Leak Protection (pRLP)" in the BGP
   Path Attributes registry.  The attribute type code is TBD.  The
   reference for this new attribute is this document (i.e. the RFC that
   replaces this draft).  The length of this new attribute is 0.

   IANA is requested to register a new optional, transitive BGP Path
   Attribute, named "Route Leak Protection" in the BGP Path Attributes
   registry.  The attribute type code is TBD.  The reference for this
   new attribute is this document (i.e. the RFC that replaces this
   draft).  The length field of this attribute is 2 octets, and the
   length of the value field of this attribute is variable (see
   Figure 2) in Section 4.3.1 of this document).

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Job Snijders,
   Warren Kumari, Amogh Dhamdhere, Jakob Heitz, Geoff Huston, Randy
   Bush, Alexander Azimov, Ruediger Volk, Sue Hares, Wes George, Job
   Snijders, 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.

10.  References

10.1.  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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

10.2.  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, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   [Cowie2010]
              Cowie, J., "China's 18 Minute Mystery",  Dyn
              Research/Renesys Blog, November 2010,
              <http://research.dyn.com/2010/11/
              chinas-18-minute-mystery/>.

   [Cowie2013]
              Cowie, J., "The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic
              Misdirection",  Dyn Research/Renesys Blog, November 2013,
              <http://research.dyn.com/2013/11/
              mitm-internet-hijacking/>.

   [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-ietf-idr-aspath-orf]
              Patel, K. and S. Hares, "AS path Based Outbound Route
              Filter for BGP-4",  IETF Internet Draft (expired), August
              2007, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-aspath-
              orf-09>.

   [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>.

   [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.







Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   [Hiran]    Hiran, R., Carlsson, N., and P. Gill, "Characterizing
              Large-scale Routing Anomalies: A Case Study of the China
              Telecom Incident",  PAM 2013, March 2013,
              <http://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~phillipa/papers/
              CTelecom.html>.

   [Huston2012]
              Huston, G., "Leaking Routes", March 2012,
              <http://labs.apnic.net/blabs/?p=139/>.

   [Huston2014]
              Huston, G., "What's so special about 512?", September
              2014, <http://labs.apnic.net/blabs/?p=520/>.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
              Lepinski, M. and K. Sriram, "BGPsec Protocol
              Specification", draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-22 (work
              in progress), January 2017.

   [I-D.ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy]
              Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., and K.
              Sriram, "Route Leak Detection and Filtering using Roles in
              Update and Open messages", draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-
              policy-02 (work in progress), November 2016.

   [Kapela-Pilosov]
              Pilosov, A. and T. Kapela, "Stealing the Internet: An
              Internet-Scale Man in the Middle Attack", DEFCON-16 Las
              Vegas, NV, USA, August 2008,
              <https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-16/dc16-
              presentations/defcon-16-pilosov-kapela.pdf>.

   [Kephart]  Kephart, N., "Route Leak Causes Amazon and AWS Outage",
               ThousandEyes Blog, June 2015,
              <https://blog.thousandeyes.com/route-leak-causes-amazon-
              and-aws-outage>.

   [Khare]    Khare, V., Ju, Q., and B. Zhang, "Concurrent Prefix
              Hijacks: Occurrence and Impacts",  IMC 2012, Boston, MA,
              November 2012, <http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~bzhang/
              paper/12-imc-hijack.pdf>.

   [Labovitz]
              Labovitz, C., "Additional Discussion of the April China
              BGP Hijack Incident",  Arbor Networks IT Security Blog,
              November 2010,
              <http://www.arbornetworks.com/asert/2010/11/additional-
              discussion-of-the-april-china-bgp-hijack-incident/>.



Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   [LRL]      Khare, V., Ju, Q., and B. Zhang, "Large Route Leaks",
               Project web page, 2012,
              <http://nrl.cs.arizona.edu/projects/
              lsrl-events-from-2003-to-2009/>.

   [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>.

   [Madory]   Madory, D., "Why Far-Flung Parts of the Internet Broke
              Today",  Dyn Research/Renesys Blog, September 2014,
              <http://research.dyn.com/2014/09/
              why-the-internet-broke-today/>.

   [Mauch]    Mauch, J., "BGP Routing Leak Detection System",  Project
              web page, 2014,
              <http://puck.nether.net/bgp/leakinfo.cgi/>.

   [Mauch-nanog]
              Mauch, J., "Detecting Routing Leaks by Counting",
              NANOG-41 Albuquerque, NM, USA, October 2007,
              <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog41/presentations/
              mauch-lightning.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., 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>.

   [Paseka]   Paseka, T., "Why Google Went Offline Today and a Bit about
              How the Internet Works",  CloudFare Blog, November 2012,
              <http://blog.cloudflare.com/
              why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about/>.

   [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>.





Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   [RFC1105-obsolete]
              Lougheed, K. and Y. Rekhter, "A Border Gateway Protocol
              (BGP)",  IETF RFC (obsolete), June 1989,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1105>.

   [RFC6811]  Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
              Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6811>.

   [RFC7454]  Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations
              and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,
              February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.

   [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7908>.

   [Snijders]
              Snijders, J., "Practical everyday BGP filtering with
              AS_PATH filters: Peer Locking", NANOG-47 Chicago, IL, USA,
              June 2016, <https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/
              Snijders_Everyday_Practical_Bgp.pdf>.

   [Sriram]   Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., Dickson, B., Patel, K., and A.
              Robachevsky , "Methods for Detection and Mitigation of BGP
              Route Leaks",  IETF-95 IDR WG Meeting), April 2016,
              <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-idr-
              13.pdf>.

   [Toonk]    Toonk, A., "What Caused Today's Internet Hiccup", August
              2014, <http://www.bgpmon.net/
              what-caused-todays-internet-hiccup/>.

   [Toonk2015-A]
              Toonk, A., "What caused the Google service interruption",
              March 2015, <http://www.bgpmon.net/
              what-caused-the-google-service-interruption/>.

   [Toonk2015-B]
              Toonk, A., "Massive route leak causes Internet slowdown",
              June 2015, <http://www.bgpmon.net/
              massive-route-leak-cause-internet-slowdown/>.







Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     Route Leak Detection and Mitigation        March 2017


   [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>.

   [Zmijewski]
              Zmijewski, E., "Indonesia Hijacks the World",  Dyn
              Research/Renesys Blog, April 2014,
              <http://research.dyn.com/2014/04/
              indonesia-hijacks-world/>.

Authors' Addresses

   Kotikalapudi Sriram
   US NIST

   Email: ksriram@nist.gov


   Doug Montgomery
   US NIST

   Email: dougm@nist.gov


   Brian Dickson

   Email: brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com


   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus

   Email: keyur@arrcus.com


   Andrei Robachevsky
   Internet Society

   Email: robachevsky@isoc.org










Sriram, et al.          Expires September 7, 2017              [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/