uPRF strict more

Wed Sep 29 18:14:21 UTC 2021

Disclosure I work for Cisco and try to look after some of their peering guidelines.

Agree with Adam’s statement, use uRPF on edge DIA customers.  Using it elsewhere on the network eventually is going to cause some issue and its usefulness today is almost nil.  That being said we still see large providers who have it turned on for peering/transit interfaces either out of legacy configuration or other reasons.  The vast majority do not use it for those interface roles.

Phil

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+bedard.phil=gmail.com at nanog.org> on behalf of Adam Thompson <athompson at merlin.mb.ca>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 1:08 PM
To: Amir Herzberg <amir.lists at gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: uPRF strict more
We just ran into a typical case where uRPF caused a partial outage for one of my customers: the customer is multi-homed, with another provider that I'm also connected to.  Customer advertised a longer-prefix to the other guy, so I started sending traffic destined for Customer to the Other Provider... who then promptly dropped it because they had uRPF enabled on the peering link, and they were seeing random source IPs that weren't mine.  Well... yeah, that can happen (semi-legitimately) anytime you have a topological triangle in peering.

I've concluded over the last 2 years that uRPF is only useful on interfaces pointing directly at non-multi-homed customers, and actively dangerous anywhere else.

-Adam

Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
[1593169877849]
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athompson at merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson at merlin.mb.ca>
www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/>
________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb.ca at nanog.org> on behalf of Amir Herzberg <amir.lists at gmail.com>
Sent: September 28, 2021 20:06
To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: uPRF strict more

Randy, great question. I'm teaching that it's very rarely, if ever, used (due to high potential for benign loss); it's always great to be either confirmed or corrected...

So if anyone replies just to Randy - pls cc me too (or, Randy, if you could sum up and send to list or me - thanks!)

Amir
--
Amir Herzberg

Comcast professor of Security Innovations, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Connecticut
Homepage: https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/home
`Applied Introduction to Cryptography' textbook and lectures: https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook<https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook>

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 8:50 PM Randy Bush <randy at psg.com<mailto:randy at psg.com>> wrote:
do folk use uPRF strict mode?  i always worried about the multi-homed
customer sending packets out the other way which loop back to me;  see
RFC 8704 §2.2

do vendors implement the complexity of 8704; and, if so, do operators
use it?

clue bat please

randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210929/832a9ebc/attachment.html>