--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-17.txt 2021-12-04 06:13:12.492525389 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18.txt 2021-12-04 06:13:12.520526086 -0800 @@ -1,26 +1,26 @@ Network Working Group A. Azimov Internet-Draft Qrator Labs & Yandex Intended status: Standards Track E. Bogomazov -Expires: April 16, 2022 Qrator Labs +Expires: June 7, 2022 Qrator Labs R. Bush Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus, Inc. K. Patel Arrcus K. Sriram USA NIST - October 13, 2021 + December 4, 2021 Route Leak Prevention and Detection using Roles in UPDATE and OPEN Messages - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-17 + draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18 Abstract Route leaks are the propagation of BGP prefixes that violate assumptions of BGP topology relationships, e.g., announcing a route learned from one transit provider to another transit provider or a lateral (i.e., non-transit) peer or announcing a route learned from one lateral peer to another lateral peer or a transit provider. These are usually the result of misconfigured or absent BGP route filtering or lack of coordination between autonomous systems (ASes). @@ -50,21 +50,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2022. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2022. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -81,21 +81,21 @@ 2. Peering Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. BGP Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. BGP Role Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Role Correctness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. BGP Only to Customer (OTC) Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction Route leaks are the propagation of BGP prefixes that violate assumptions of BGP topology relationships, e.g., announcing a route learned from one transit provider to another transit provider or a lateral (i.e., non-transit) peer or announcing a route learned from @@ -493,25 +493,20 @@ [RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, . [RFC7908] Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., McPherson, D., Osterweil, E., and B. Dickson, "Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks", RFC 7908, DOI 10.17487/RFC7908, June 2016, . - [RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of - BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016, - . - [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 8.2. Informative References @@ -519,20 +514,25 @@ [Gao] Gao, L. and J. Rexford, "Stable Internet routing without global coordination", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 689-692, DOI 10.1109/90.974523, December 2001, . [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, . + [RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of + BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016, + . + [RFC8205] Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September 2017, . Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Alvaro Retana, Andrei Robachevsky, Daniel Ginsburg, Jeff Haas, Ruediger Volk, Pavel Lunin, Gyan Mishra, Ignas Bagdonas, Sue Hares, and John Scudder for comments, suggestions, and critique.