"Defensive" BGP hijacking?

Mel Beckman mel at beckman.org
Wed Sep 14 22:04:26 UTC 2016


I was basing my comments on your statement "If only there were a global system.."  However you slice or dice it, the tyranny implications have not yet been addressed. That certainly needs to be in front of any technical idea such as RPKI.

Although I haven't participated in the OT&E, nothing I've read in RFC 6810 talks about these issues. It talks about authentication and transport security, but doesn't talk about the potential for government interference.

 -mel beckman

On Sep 14, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Doug Montgomery <dougm.work at gmail.com<mailto:dougm.work at gmail.com>> wrote:


If you are speaking of RPKI based origin validation, I am not sure "automated / global enforcement system" is a useful description.   It does provide a consistent means for address holders to declare AS's authorized to announce prefixes, and a means for remote ASs to compare received updates vs such declarations.   What the receiving AS does with the validation information is strictly a local policy matter.

Frankly, this is no more a "new automated enforcement system" than IRR-based route filtering has been for 20 years.  The only difference is that there is a consistent security model across all 5 RIRs as to who can make such declarations and it is tightly tied to the address allocation business process.

I have seen a lot of FUD about the specter of interference, but not a lot of serious thought / discussion.  Having a serious technical discussion of potential risks and mitigations in the system would be useful.


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org<mailto:mel at beckman.org>> wrote:
Scott and Doug,

The problem with a new automated enforcement system is that it hobbles both agility and innovation. ISPs have enjoyed simple BGP management, entirely self-regulated, for decades. A global enforcement system, besides being dang hard to do correctly, brings the specter of government interference, since such a system could be overtaken by government entities to manhandle free speech.

In my opinion, the community hasn't spent nearly enough time discussing the danger aspect. Being engineers, we focus on technical means, ignoring the fact that we're designing our own guillotine.

 -mel beckman

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com<mailto:surfer at mauigateway.com>> wrote:
> --- dougm.work at gmail.com<mailto:dougm.work at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Doug Montgomery <dougm.work at gmail.com<mailto:dougm.work at gmail.com>>
> If only there were a global system, with consistent and verifiable security
> properties, to permit address holders to declare the set of AS's authorized
> to announce their prefixes, and routers anywhere on the Internet to
> independently verify the corresponding validity of received announcements.
> *cough      https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2846     cough*
> ------------------------------------------------
> Yes, RPKI.  That's what I was waiting for.  Now we can get to
> a real discussion... ;-)
> scott

DougM at Work

More information about the NANOG mailing list