Re: Another youtube-ish BGP problem threatens the global routing tables

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
Date: November 11, 2008 8:52:11 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Another youtube-ish BGP problem threatens the global  
routing tables

The linked article implies that BGP as a "core" internet protocol was  
developed in the 1970's. It was not. I was on the IAB in the early  
1990's when BGP was introduced. The IAB was well aware of many  
limitations of this protocol, but it was the best available technology  
at the time that (partially) solved a critical problem and so we were  
forced to accept it.

>http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/revealed-the-in.html

If it had not been for concerted government efforts in the 70's, 80's  
and 90's to impede or suppress encryption technology perhaps we would  
not be facing these particular difficulties. Export controls on  
encryption made it difficult in this period for manufacturers to  
incorporate encryption technology into their products. (I have first  
hand experience of this.) Political pressure from large governmental  
customers may also have contributed, but I can only speculate about  
that, as those who I have questioned in the past were close mouthed.  
(It was difficult to carry on reasonable conversations on these  
subjects with individuals who had the appropriate knowledge, because  
their security clearances required them to be "split brain".)


Tony Lauck
https://www.aglauck.com

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/revealed-the-in.html
David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
> *From: *"jamie rishaw" <j () arpa com <mailto:j () arpa com>>
> *Date: *November 11, 2008 1:04:23 AM EST
> *To: *dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>
> *Subject: **Another youtube-ish BGP problem threatens the global  
> routing tables*
> [For IP]
>  You may recall the event just a few months ago that alleged a  
> Pakistani "hijack" of the BGP route-advertisements leading to  
> Youtube..  the same is under way as I type this.
> :: Short Story / "Breaking News" ::
>  Hundreds to thousands of networks connected to the internet are  
> being threatened and "black holed" by what appears to be a failure  
> of trust in the policies implementing the Internet routing protocol  
> BGP.
> :: More details :: -->
>  Thousands of network routes on the Internet are being  
> advertised('originated') by an end-point-network that should NOT be  
> doing so. (To put in other terms, Company XYZ is advertising the IP  
> routes of companies A, B, C, D, 123, 99F, D3ADB33F and nine thousand  
> others -- black-hole-ing them to major parts of the internet).    
> How?  In the sometimes blind trust that network operators give other  
> network operators, a failure to limit the BGP 'advertisements' of  
> customers' networks is turning into a sharp reminder of the  
> fragility of our Internets.  (All of them).  ;)
>  I'm going to go "out on a limb" here and assert that while I don't  
> believe what's going on right now is an Attack, it certainly  
> highlights and front-burners the reality that our global routing  
> tables are extremely vulnerable.  As an extremely bright fellow  
> engineer[1] pointed out recently, BGP is a fragile - nay - crumbling  
> - protocol and practice that needs to be rearchitected.
>  The routing of my own networks and the networks of many others was  
> brought front-burner tonight when alerts were raised[2] about  
> possible route-hijacking.  Intended to serve the purpose of alerting  
> of situations just like this, network operators across in the states  
> and across the pond collaborated on the NANOG (the North American  
> Network Operators' Group) mailing list, and, of course, real-time in  
> a private realtime-messaging environment.  Call after call was made,  
> to deaf ears, and the network advertisements persist.
>  Nobody anticipates any response before tomorrow, at which point  
> damage has been  done.
>  Serious improvements to. and rearchitecture of, the limitations and  
> vulnerabilities of BGP, needs to be brought to light.  Two  
> incidents, both directly attributable to bgp, in one six month  
> period, are proving to be serious challenges to the "structural  
> integrity" of the Internet.
>  What will it take to get serious response?
> -jamie
> [1] Tony Kapela, http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/revealed-the-in.html
> [2] Via BGPMon, bgpmon.net <http://bgpmon.net>
> --
> jamie rishaw <j *(at)* arpa-dot-com>
> arpa :: instigating advancement
> did :: +1-(800)-827-2096 x100
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ 
> > 	[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com