draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05.txt		draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-06.txt
	Global Routing Operations K. Sriram		Global Routing Operations K. Sriram
	Internet-Draft D. Montgomery		Internet-Draft D. Montgomery
	Intended status: Informational US NIST		Intended status: Informational US NIST
	Expires: October 31, 2016 D. McPherson		Expires: November 6, 2016 D. McPherson
	E. Osterweil		E. Osterweil
	Verisign, Inc.		Verisign, Inc.
	B. Dickson		B. Dickson
	April 29, 2016		May 5, 2016
	Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks		Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks
	draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-05		draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing		A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing
	system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in		system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in
	recent years. Frequent incidents that result in significant		recent years. Frequent incidents that result in significant
	disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to		disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to
	date a common definition of the term has been lacking. This document		date a common definition of the term has been lacking. This document
	provides a working definition of route leaks, keeping in mind the		provides a working definition of route leaks, keeping in mind the
	real occurrences that have received significant attention. Further,		real occurrences that have received significant attention. Further,
	skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 5, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 18 ¶
	or "peer-to-peer". This type of route leak typically occurs when,		or "peer-to-peer". This type of route leak typically occurs when,
	for example, three sequential ISP peers (e.g. ISP-A, ISP-B, and ISP-		for example, three sequential ISP peers (e.g. ISP-A, ISP-B, and ISP-
	C) are involved, and ISP-B receives a route from ISP-A and in turn		C) are involved, and ISP-B receives a route from ISP-A and in turn
	leaks it to ISP-C. The typical routing policy between laterally		leaks it to ISP-C. The typical routing policy between laterally
	(i.e. non-transit) peering ISPs is that they should only propagate to		(i.e. non-transit) peering ISPs is that they should only propagate to
	each other their respective customer prefixes.		each other their respective customer prefixes.
	o Example incidents: In [Mauch-nanog][Mauch], route leaks of this		o Example incidents: In [Mauch-nanog][Mauch], route leaks of this
	type are reported by monitoring updates in the global BGP system		type are reported by monitoring updates in the global BGP system
	and finding three or more very large ISP ASNs in a sequence in a		and finding three or more very large ISP ASNs in a sequence in a
	BGP update's AS path. [Mauch] observes that these are anomalies		BGP update's AS path. [Mauch] observes that its detection
	and potentially route leaks because very large ISPs such as ATT,		algorithm detects for these anomalies and potentially route leaks
	Sprint, Verizon, and Globalcrossing do not in general buy transit		because very large ISPs do not in general buy transit services
	services from each other. However, it also notes that there are		from each other. However, it also notes that there are exceptions
	exceptions when one very large ISP does indeed buy transit from		when one very large ISP does indeed buy transit from another very
	another very large ISP, and accordingly exceptions are made in its		large ISP, and accordingly exceptions are made in its detection
	detection algorithm for known cases.		algorithm for known cases.
	3.3. Type 3: Leak of Transit-Provider Prefixes to Peer		3.3. Type 3: Leak of Transit-Provider Prefixes to Peer
	Description: This type of route leak occurs when an offending AS		Description: This type of route leak occurs when an offending AS
	leaks routes learned from its transit provider to a lateral (i.e.		leaks routes learned from its transit provider to a lateral (i.e.
	non-transit) peer.		non-transit) peer.
	o Example incidents: The incidents reported in [Mauch] include the		o Example incidents: The incidents reported in [Mauch] include the
	Type 3 leaks.		Type 3 leaks.
End of changes. 5 change blocks.
	11 lines changed or deleted		11 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/