nanog mailing list archives
Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it?
From: Danny McPherson <danny () tcb net>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:26:35 -0600
On May 10, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
There are a lot of problems associated with using IRRDB filters for inbound prefix filtering.
We used them over 15 years ago near ubiquitously and stopped mostly because: 1) there was nothing akin to route refresh so you had to bounce best routes or reset sessions to trigger readvertisement after policy updates. This made unscheduled a pain and required some turning of the steam valves. 2) traditional ACLs were used for routing policy specification and weren't incrementally updatable, which was a huge pita. 3) IRRs were insecure to update, no one ever deletes anything from IRRs, and some folks even proxy register IRR objects based on BGP routing table entries. 4) customers complained they had to maintain them (ohh, wait, we told them if they wanted to be routed they had no choice) Regarding 1, we have route refresh and inherent soft-reconfig today. Regarding 2, pretty much all implementations support this today (although it will be a pita to maintain near exact prefix list and ACL entries for a customer down the road when used for both routing policies and ingress anti-spoofing). Regarding 3, RPKI should help here quite a bit, either used directly, or enabling IRR object population - the RIRs that run IRRs and other other folks are helping with secure update mechanisms as well. Regarding 4 - they didn't scream as loud about the policy as they did when things broke because of the absence of it, that I know firsthand.
- some clients announce lots of prefixes. This can make inbound prefix filtering difficult in some situations. pixiedust:/home/nick> grep '>' pakistani-telecom.bgpdump.txt | wc -l 967
Yes, this needs to be automated, clearly.
- there are some endemic data reliability problems with the IRRDBs, exacerbated by the fact that on most of the widely-used IRRDBs, there is no link between the RIR and the IRRDB, which means that anyone can register any address space. whois.ripe.net doesn't allow this, but lots of other IRRDBs do.
See 3 above.
- the ripe whois server software does not support server-side as-set expansion. This is a really serious problem if you're expanding large ASNs.
Do it yourself for now and file a feature request..
- there is very little client software. At least irrtoolset compiles these days, but its front-end is very primitive. rpsltool provides some really nice templating functionality, but doesn't implement large sections of the rpsl standards.
Agreed, we need to do work here. -danny
Current thread:
- RE: Securing the BGP or controlling it?, (continued)
- RE: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Thomas Magill (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Zaid Ali (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? deleskie (May 10)
- RE: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Hank Nussbacher (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Nick Hilliard (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Aaron Glenn (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Nick Hilliard (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Jared Mauch (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Nick Hilliard (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Joe Abley (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Randy Bush (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Nick Hilliard (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Marshall Eubanks (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Patrick W. Gilmore (May 11)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Larry Sheldon (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? Danny McPherson (May 10)
- Re: Securing the BGP or controlling it? deleskie (May 10)