Reaching out to ARIN members about their RPKI INVALID prefixes
job at ntt.net
Tue Sep 18 22:07:56 UTC 2018
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:44:30PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> ROAs are useful for one hop level validation. At the second AS hop
> they are 100% useless.
This conversation cannot be had without acknowledging there are multiple
layers of defense in securing BGP. We should also acknowledge that the
majority of Internet traffic passes over AS_PATHs that are only one hop.
Networks that exchange significant amounts of traffic, tend to peer
directly with each other.
> > In other words, RPKI and the Prefix-to-AS validation procedure give
> > us much more definitive inputs for routing policies compared to what
> > can be derived from the IRR.
> Please explain to me how you distinguish good from bad in the
> following scenario… You peer with AS6939. You receive routes for
> 2001:db8:f300::/48 with the following AS Paths
> 1. 6939 1239 54049 2312 1734
> 2. 6939 44046 12049 174 1734
> Which one is valid? Which one is not? How did the ROA tell you this?
Both path 1 and 2 are invalid, because of peerlock we'd never accept
1239 behind 6939, or 174 behind 6939. AS_PATH filtering combined with
Origin Validation is where the magic is.
> > RPKI is useful in context of a defense in depth strategy. If one
> > combines "peerlock" AS_PATH filters with origin validation the end
> > result is bullet proof. Even if NTT is the only one to deploy this
> > combination, the benefits are notable.
> Indeed, if peerlock gets wider deployment, it might prove useful. But
> unless I’m really misunderstanding peerlock, I don’t see that RPKI
> brings much else to the table in addition.
Wide deployment is not relevant, this is a unilateral defense mechanism,
so I fear there may indeed be a degree of misunderstanding.
More information about the NANOG