Internet DRAFT - draft-geng-idr-bgp-savnet
draft-geng-idr-bgp-savnet
IDR N. Geng
Internet-Draft Z. Tan
Intended status: Standards Track M. Liu
Expires: 14 September 2023 Huawei Technologies
13 March 2023
BGP Extensions for Source Address Validation Networks (BGP SAVNET)
draft-geng-idr-bgp-savnet-00
Abstract
Many source address validation (SAV) mechanisms have been proposed
for preventing source address spoofing. However, existing SAV
mechanisms are faced with the problems of inaccurate validation or
high operational overhead in some cases. This paper proposes BGP
SAVNET by extending BGP protocol for SAV. This protocol can
propagate SAV-related information through BGP messages. The
propagated information will help routers automatically generate
accurate SAV rules which are for checking the validity of data
packets.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 14 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 carefully, as they describe your rights
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. BGP Protocol Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. BGP SAVNET Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. SAV Solution within an AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Solution for Edge Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Solution for Aggregation Routers . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. SAV Solution between ASes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Solution for Border Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. BGP SAVNET Peering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Full-mesh IBGP Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Singe-hop IBGP Peering between Directly Connected
Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. EBGP Peering between ASes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. BGP SAVNET Protocol Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. BGP SAVNET SAFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. BGP SAVNET NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. SPA TLVs within an AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. SPA TLVs between ASes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. BGP SAVNET Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.1. The SPD TLVs within an AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.2. The SPD TLVs between ASes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.3. The SPD Optional Data Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Decision Process with BGP SAVNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. BGP SAVNET NLRI Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.1. Self-Originated NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Process of BGP SAVNET NLRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Process of BGP SAVNET SPA TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Process of BGP SAVNET Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. Process of BGP SAVNET SPD TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
1. Introduction
Source address validation (SAV) is essential for preventing source
address spoofing attacks (e.g., DDoS based on source address spoofing
[RFC6959]) and tracing back network attackers. For a network, SAV
mechanisms can be deployed on edge routers or aggregation routers for
validating the packets from the connected subnets or neighboring ASes
[manrs-antispoofing].
ACL-based ingress filtering can be used for SAV, which, however, has
high operational overhead problems in dynamic networks [I-D.li-savnet
-intra-domain-problem-statement][I-D.wu-savnet-inter-domain-problem-s
tatement] and also has limited capacity of rules. Many SAV
mechanisms, such as strict uRPF, loose uRPF, and EFP-uRPF
[RFC3704][RFC8704], leverage routing information to automatically
generate SAV rules. The rules indicate the wanted incoming
directions of source addresses. The packets with specified source
addresses but from unwanted directions will be considered invalid
[I-D.huang-savnet-sav-table]. However, there may be inaccurate
validation problems under asymmetric routing [I-D.li-savnet-intra-dom
ain-problem-statement][I-D.wu-savnet-inter-domain-problem-statement].
This is because these uRPF mechanisms are "single-point" designs.
They leverage the local FIB or local RIB table to determine the
incoming interfaces for source addresses, which may not match the
real incoming directions. That is, purely relying on the original
IGP or BGP protocols to obtain routing information for SAV rule
generation cannot well meet the requirement of accurate validation.
This document proposes an extension of BGP protocol for SAV, i.e.,
BGP SAVNET. Unlike existing "single-point" mechanisms, BGP SAVNET
allows coordination between the routers within the network or the
ASes outside the network by propagating SAV-related information
through extended BGP messages. The propagated information can
provide more accurate source address information and incoming
direction information than the local FIB and RIB tables. The routers
with BGP SAVNET can automatically generate accurate SAV rules without
introducing much overhead.
The BGP SAVNET protocol is suitable to generating SAV rules for both
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The SAV rules can be used for validating
any native IP packets or IP-encapsulated packets.
1.1. Terminology
SAV: Source address validation, an approach to preventing source
address spoofing.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
SAV Rule: The rule that indicates the valid incoming interfaces for a
specific source prefix.
SAV Table: The table or data structure that implements the SAV rules
and is used for source address validation in the data plane.
SPA: Source prefix advertisement, i.e., the process for advertising
the origin source addresses/prefixes of a router or an AS.
SPD: Source path discovery, i.e., the process for discovering the
real incoming directions of particular source addresses/prefixes.
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. BGP Protocol Relationship
The BGP extensions for BGP SAVNET follow a backward compatible manner
without impacting existing BGP functions. New BGP SAVNET subsequent
address families will be introduced under the IPv4 address family and
the IPv6 address family, respectively. The BGP UPDATE message
(specifically the MP_REACH_NLRI and the MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes)
and the BGP Refresh message will be extended. AFI and SAFI can be
used for distinguishing the BGP SAVNET messages from other messages.
A few existing path attributes such as Originator_ID and Clister_list
or new defined path attributes MAY be used for BGP SAVNET. Actually,
most existing path attributes are not necessarily required for BGP
SAVNET. However, if the unnecessary path attributes are carried in
BGP updates, they will be accepted, validated, and propagated
consistent with the BGP protocol.
3. BGP SAVNET Solution
3.1. Application Scenarios
BGP SAVNET aims to generate accurate SAV rules for most use cases
including asymmetric routing. An SAV rule indicates the valid
incoming interfaces for a specific source address/prefix. A router
with BGP SVANET will locally maintain a SAV table storing the SAV
rules. The SAV table can be used for validating data packets.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
Figure 1 shows the application scenarios where BGP SAVNET will
enabling SAV in data plane:
* SAV within an AS
- Edge routers connecting subnets: BGP SAVNET can be deployed at
'*' for checking the validity of the packets from subnets.
- Aggregation routers: Aggregation routers can do validation at
'x' for any arrival packets.
* SAV between ASes
- Border routers connecting other ASes: BGP SAVNET can be
deployed at '#' for checking the validity of the packets from
other ASes.
+-----+ +-----+
| AS1 | | AS2 |
+-----+ +-----+
\ /
+-------------\-----------/-------------+
| AS3 +-#--+ +--#-+ |
| | R7 |---| R8 | |
| +----+ +----+ |
| | | |
| +-x--+ +--x-+ |
| ------x R5 x---x R6 x------ |
| | +-x--+ +--x-+ | |
| | | | | |
| +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ |
| | R1 | | R2 |---| R3 | | R4 | |
| +--*-+ +-*--+ +--#-+ +-#--+ |
+-------\-----/-----------\-----/-------+
+-------+ +-----+
|Subnet1| | AS4 |
+-------+ +-----+
Figure 1: BGP SAVNET application scenarios
3.2. SAV Solution within an AS
The solution consists of two main processes: Source Address
Advertisement (SPA) and Source Path Discovery (SPD). Edge routers
can generate SAV rules through SPA on the interfaces connecting
subnets. SPA and SPD can help aggregation routers generate SAV rules
on the interfaces connecting other routers.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
3.2.1. Solution for Edge Routers
Edge routers aims to generate SAV rules, i.e., the source prefix
allowlist at each interface connecting to a subnet. If the subnet is
single-homed, the allowlist can be generated through local RIB. When
the subnet is multi-homed to edge routers, asymmetric routing may
exist. SPA will help the routers get accurate allowlist.
Specifically, edge routers can propagate its source prefixes learned
from an interface connecting to a subnet. The source prefixes with a
tag will be carried in the SPA message. Other routers will receive
the message. The interfaces configured with the same tag value on
other routers will include the tagged source prefixes in the
corresponding allowlist. More details can be found in the version-00
of [I-D.li-savnet-intra-domain-architecture].
3.2.2. Solution for Aggregation Routers
Aggregation routers are to generate SAV rules for checking the
validity of recorded source prefixes and ignore the validation of
unrecorded source prefixes. Each edge router can first send SPA
messages for propagating its router-id and its source prefixes that
need to be validated. Aggregation routers will record the mapping
from router-id to source prefixes. Then, each edge router will send
an SPD messages to each neighbor router. The message carries the
source router-id of the edge router and the destination router-ids
whose mapped source prefixes take the neighbor router as the next
forwarding hop. The neighbor router (e.g., aggregation router)
receiving the message will record the incoming interface of the
message, and SAV rules will be generated locally by binding the
source router-id's source prefixes to the recorded incoming
interface. Then neighbor router will remove its own router-id from
the destination router-id list and relay the message to its neighbors
according to local forwarding rules. The routers receiving the
message will repeat the above process until the destination router-id
list is empty. More details can be found in the version-00 of
[I-D.li-savnet-intra-domain-architecture].
3.3. SAV Solution between ASes
3.3.1. Solution for Border Routers
The solution consists of two main processes: SPA and SPD. Border
routers can generate SAV rules at interfaces connecting to other ASes
through SPA and SPD.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
Let AS X be the local AS which acts as a validation AS and generates
SAV rules for other ASes. Let AS Y be one of the ASes deploying BGP
SAVNET, which is named as source AS. Validation AS X will generate
SAV rules for protecting the source prefixes of source AS Y.
AS Y first advertise its own AS number and its own source prefixes to
AS X through SPA messages. SPA is necessary because AS Y cannot
learn the complete set of source prefixes of AS Y purely through BGP
updates. Some hidden source prefixes that do not appear can be
advertised to AS X through SPA messages.
After SPA, AS Y can send SPD messages for notifying its preferred AS
paths from AS Y to AS X. AS X will learn the incoming direction of
AS Y's packets. Then, SAV rules can be generated. SPD can help AS X
for discovering the real forwarding paths that do not match the
control plane paths learned by AS X. More details can be found in
the version-00 of [I-D.wu-savnet-inter-domain-architecture].
Note that, the SAV solutions either within an AS or between ASes are
under working on. The BGP SAVNET will be updated if the solutions
are revised.
4. BGP SAVNET Peering Models
Several BGP SAVNET solutions are introduced that can be applied in
different scenarios. Depending on the solution's feature, different
peering models need to be taken.
4.1. Full-mesh IBGP Peering
This peering model is required by the SAV solution within an AS so
that the edge routers can generate SAV rules. In this model, routers
enabling BGP SAVNET MUST establish full-mesh iBGP sessions either
through direct iBGP sessions or route-reflector. The BGP SAVNET
sessions can be established only when the BGP SAVNET address family
has been successfully negotiated. SPA messages within an AS can be
advertised through the full-mesh BGP SAVNET sessions. The extensions
of BGP messages for carrying SPA messages will be introduced in
Section 5.
4.2. Singe-hop IBGP Peering between Directly Connected Routers
This peering model meets the requirement of the SAV solution within
an AS so that the aggregation routers can generate SAV rules. In
this model, routers enabling BGP SAVNET MUST establish single-hop
iBGP sessions through direct point-to-point links. For each link, a
single-hop iBGP session needs to be established, and the messages
transmitted over the session MUST be carried by the corresponding
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
link. SPD messages within an AS can be advertised through these
sessions. The extensions of BGP messages for carrying SPD messages
will be introduced in Section 5.
4.3. EBGP Peering between ASes
The SAV solution between ASes requires eBGP sessions which can be
single-hop or multi-hop. In this model, for the AS enabling BGP
SAVNET, at least one border router in the AS MUST establish the BGP
SAVNET sessions with other border routers in the neighboring or
remote ASes. SPA and SPD messages between ASes will be advertised
through these sessions. The extensions of BGP messages for carrying
SPA and SPD messages will be introduced in Section 5.
5. BGP SAVNET Protocol Extension
5.1. BGP SAVNET SAFI
In order to transmitting and exchanging data needed to generate an
independent SAV table, the document introduces the BGP SAVNET SAFI.
The value is TBD and requires IANA registration as specified in
Section 9. In order for two BGP SAVNET speakers to exchange BGP
SAVNET NLRI (SPA message), they MUST establish a BGP SAVNET peer and
MUST exchange the Multiprotocol Extensions Capability [RFC5492] to
ensure that they are both capable of processing such NLRI properly.
Two BGP SAVNET speakers MUST exchange Route Refresh Capability
[RFC2918] to ensure that they are both capable of processing the SPD
message carried in the BGP Refresh message.
5.2. BGP SAVNET NLRI
The BGP SAVNET NLRI is used to transmit Source Prefix (either IPv4 or
IPv6) information to form a uniform Source Prefix list within a
deployment domain.
The BGP SAVNET NLRI TLVs are carried in BGP UPDATE messages as (1)
route advertisement carried within Multiprotocol Reachable NLRI
(MP_REACH_NLRI) [RFC4760], and (2) route withdraw carried within
Multiprotocol Unreachable NLRI (MP_UNREACH_NLRI).
While encoding an MP_REACH_NLRI attribute containing BGP SAVNET NLRI
TLVs, the "Length of Next Hop Network Address" field SHOULD be set to
0 upon the sender. The "Network Address of Next Hop" field should
not be encoded upon the sender, because it has a 0 length and MUST be
ignored upon the receiver.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
5.2.1. SPA TLVs within an AS
The BGP SAVNET NLRI TLV each carries a Source Prefix and related
information, therefore it is called an SPA TLV. This type of TLVs
are used in SPA process within an AS. The format is shown below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (1) | Length (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Origin router-id (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MaskLen (1) | IP Prefix (1~16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SPA TLV format
The meaning of these fields are as follows:
* Type: Type of the BGP SAVNET NLRI TLV, the value is 1 for SPA TLV
within an AS.
* Length: The length of the BGP SAVNET NLRI value, the Type and
Length fields are excluded.
* Origin router-id: The router ID of the originating node of the
source prefix in the deployment domain.
* MaskLen: The mask length in bits, which also indicates the valid
bits of the IP Prefix field.
* IP Prefix: IP address. The length ranges from 1 to 16 bytes.
Format is consistent with BGP IPv4/IPv6 unicast address.
* Tag: Interface Tag.
5.2.2. SPA TLVs between ASes
This type of TLVs are used in SPA process between ASes. Type value
is 2 for SPA TLV between ASes. The details are TBD.
5.3. BGP SAVNET Refresh
The SPD TLV is carried in a BGP Refresh message after the BGP Refresh
message body, as follows:
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI (2) | Reserved (1) | SAFI (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SPD TLV (variable) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: BGP-REFRESH with SPD TLV format
By carrying an SPD TLV, a BGP SAVNET Refresh message MUST NOT be
processed as a Route-Refresh (as a re-advertisement request) and
SHOULD only be used in the SPD process. A BGP SAVNET Refresh message
without an SPD TLV SHOULD be processed as a Route-Refresh as defined
in Route Refresh Capability [RFC2918].
5.3.1. The SPD TLVs within an AS
The SPD TLV carries the information that the Source Path Discovery
process needed. This type of TLVs are used in SPD process within an
AS. The format is shown below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (1) | SubType (1) | Length (2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Origin router-id (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Data Length (2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Data (variable) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Dest List (variable) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SPD TLV format
The meaning of these fields are as follows:
* Type: TLV Type, the value is 2 for SPD TLV.
* SubType: TLV Sub-Type, value is 1 for SPD TLV within an AS.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
* Length: The length of the SPD TLV value, the Type, SubType and
Length fields are excluded.
* Sequence Number: Indicates the sequence of Source Path Discovery
process. The initial value is 0 and the value increases
monotonically.
* Origin router-id: The router ID of the originating node of the
Source Path Discovery process.
* Optional Data Length: The length of the optional data field in
bytes. The value can be 0 when there is no optional data.
* Optional Data: In Sub-TLV format, see Section 5.3.2 for details.
* Dest List: List of destination router-ids, using 4-bytes route-id,
indicates the destinations of this Source Path Discovery process.
5.3.2. The SPD TLVs between ASes
This type of TLVs are used in SPD process between ASes. SubType
value is 2 for SPD TLV between ASes. The details are TBD.
5.3.3. The SPD Optional Data Sub-TLVs
Information in the Optional Data field of the SPD TLV is encoded in
Sub-TLV format. The format is shown below and applies to all types
of Sub-TLVs. Each type of Sub-TLV SHOULD appear no more than once in
an SPD TLV.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (2) | Length (2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| values (variable) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: SPD Optional Data Sub-TLV format
The meaning of these fields are as follows:
* Type: Sub-TLV Type. The value 1 and 2 have been taken. The
sequence of values is TBD and requires IANA registration as
specified in Section 9.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
* Length: The length of the Sub-TLV value, the Type and Length
fields are excluded.
5.3.3.1. Sub-TLV Type 1: Origin Router-id List
List of agent original router-ids, using 4-bytes route-id. This
information is used in the SPD convergence process and can carry a
maximum of 254 router-ids.
5.3.3.2. Sub-TLV Type 2: Path Router-id List
List of path router-ids, using 4-bytes route-id, record all the
router-id of the routers that the SPD process has passed through.
This information is used to prevent loops and can carry a maximum of
254 router-ids.
6. Decision Process with BGP SAVNET
The Decision Process described in [RFC4271] works to determines a
degree of preference among routes with the same prefix. The Decision
Process involves many BGP Path attributes, which are not necessary
for BGP SAVNET SPA and SPD process, such as next-hop attributes and
IGP-metric attributes. Therefore, this document introduces a
simplified Decision Process for SAVNET SAFI.
The purpose of SPA is to maintain a uniform Source Prefix list, which
is the mapping from original router-id to IP addresses, across all
routers in the deploy domain. To ensure this, it is RECOMMENDED that
all routers deploy no ingress or egress route-policies.
6.1. BGP SAVNET NLRI Selection
The Decision Process described in [RFC4271] no longer apply, and the
Decision Process for BGP SAVNET NLRI are as follows:
1. The locally imported route is preferred over the route received
from a peer.
2. The route received from a peer with the numerically larger
originator is preferred.
3. The route received from a peer with the numerically larger Peer
IP Address is preferred.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
6.1.1. Self-Originated NLRI
BGP SAVNET NLRI with origin router-id matching the local router-id is
considered self-originated. All locally imported routes should be
considered self-originated by default.
Since the origin router-id is part of the NLRI key, it is very
unlikely that a self-originated NLRI would be received from a peer.
Unless a router-id conflict occurs due to incorrect configuration.
In this case, the self-originated NLRI MUST be discarded upon the
receiver, and appropriate error logging is RECOMMENDED.
On the other hand, besides the route learn from peers, a BGP SAVNET
speaker MUST NOT advertise NLRI which is not self-originated.
7. Error Handling
7.1. Process of BGP SAVNET NLRIs
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives a BGP Update containing a
malformed MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI, it MUST ignore the
received TLV and MUST NOT pass it to other BGP peers. When
discarding a malformed TLV, a BGP SAVNET speaker MAY log a specific
error.
If duplicate NLRIs exist in a MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI
attribute, only the last one SHOULD be used.
7.2. Process of BGP SAVNET SPA TLVs
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPA TLV with an undefined type,
it MUST be considered malformed.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPA TLV with a 0 origin router-
id, or the origin router-id is the same as the local router-id, it
MUST be considered malformed.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPA TLV with an invalid MaskLen
field, which is out of the range 1~32 for IPv4 and 1~128 for IPv6, it
MUST be considered malformed.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPA TLV with an address field,
whose length in bytes do not match with the remaining data, it MUST
be considered malformed.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives a malformed SPA TLV, it MUST
ignore the received TLV and MUST NOT pass it to other BGP peers.
When discarding a malformed TLV, a BGP SAVNET speaker MAY log a
specific error.
7.3. Process of BGP SAVNET Refresh
Each BGP Refresh message MUST contain at most one SPD TLV. When a
BGP SAVNET speaker receives a BGP Refresh packet with multiple SPD
TLVs, only the first one SHOULD be processed.
7.4. Process of BGP SAVNET SPD TLVs
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPD TLV with an undefined type
or subtype, it MUST be considered malformed.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPD TLV with a 0 origin router-
id, or the origin router-id is the same as the local router-id, it
MUST be considered malformed.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPD TLV with an optional data
sub-TLV that is an undefined type, it MUST be considered malformed.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPD TLV with a DestList field
that is not a multiple of 4 in length, it MUST be considered
malformed.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives a Refresh message with a malformed
SPD TLV, it MUST ignore the received message. When discarding a
malformed message, a BGP SAVNET speaker MAY log a specific error.
When a BGP SAVNET speaker receives an SPD TLV with a sequence number
that does not match the local recorded sequence number:
* If the newly received sequence number is numerically larger, the
local recorded sequence number SHOULD be updated to the newly
received sequence number.
* If the newly received sequence number is numerically smaller, the
local recorded sequence number SHOULD NOT be updated, and the BGP
SAVNET speaker SHOULD log a specific error.
8. Management Considerations
TBD
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
9. IANA Considerations
The BGP SAVNET SAFIs under the IPv4 address family and the IPv6
address family need to be allocated by IANA.
10. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2918, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2918>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[I-D.li-savnet-intra-domain-architecture]
Li, D., Wu, J., Huang, M., Chen, L., Geng, N., Qin, L.,
and F. Gao, "Intra-domain Source Address Validation
(SAVNET) Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-li-savnet-intra-domain-architecture-01, 12 March
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-
savnet-intra-domain-architecture-01>.
[I-D.wu-savnet-inter-domain-architecture]
Wu, J., Li, D., Huang, M., Chen, L., Geng, N., Liu, L.,
and L. Qin, "Inter-domain Source Address Validation
(SAVNET) Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-wu-savnet-inter-domain-architecture-01, 13 March
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wu-
savnet-inter-domain-architecture-01>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC6959] McPherson, D., Baker, F., and J. Halpern, "Source Address
Validation Improvement (SAVI) Threat Scope", RFC 6959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6959, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6959>.
[RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, March
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[RFC8704] Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., and J. Haas, "Enhanced
Feasible-Path Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding", BCP 84,
RFC 8704, DOI 10.17487/RFC8704, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8704>.
[I-D.li-savnet-intra-domain-problem-statement]
Li, D., Wu, J., Qin, L., Huang, M., and N. Geng, "Source
Address Validation in Intra-domain Networks Gap Analysis,
Problem Statement, and Requirements", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-li-savnet-intra-domain-problem-
statement-07, 11 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-savnet-
intra-domain-problem-statement-07>.
[I-D.wu-savnet-inter-domain-problem-statement]
Wu, J., Li, D., Liu, L., Huang, M., and N. Geng, "Source
Address Validation in Inter-domain Networks Gap Analysis,
Problem Statement, and Requirements", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-wu-savnet-inter-domain-problem-
statement-06, 4 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wu-savnet-
inter-domain-problem-statement-06>.
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for SAVNET March 2023
[I-D.huang-savnet-sav-table]
Huang, M., Cheng, W., Li, D., Geng, N., Liu, and L. Chen,
"Source Address Validation Table Abstraction and
Application", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
huang-savnet-sav-table-01, 6 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-huang-savnet-
sav-table-01>.
[manrs-antispoofing]
"MANRS Implementation Guide", January 2023,
<https://www.manrs.org/netops/guide/antispoofing>.
Acknowledgements
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Nan Geng
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: gengnan@huawei.com
Zhen Tan
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: tanzhen6@huawei.com
Mingxing Liu
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: liumingxing7@huawei.com
Geng, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 17]
