[Idr] RFC 9234 on Route Leak Prevention and Detection Using Roles in UPDATE and OPEN Messages

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Fri, 06 May 2022 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC12C159493; Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8QDMx-CyrXMM; Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17EAFC157B55; Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id E0F758DED5; Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, idr@ietf.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220506194818.E0F758DED5@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 12:48:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4uAFfRjvffVMV7LqXHd8Y_kaZ3w>
Subject: [Idr] RFC 9234 on Route Leak Prevention and Detection Using Roles in UPDATE and OPEN Messages
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 19:48:22 -0000

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 9234

        Title:      Route Leak Prevention and Detection 
                    Using Roles in UPDATE and OPEN Messages 
        Author:     A. Azimov,
                    E. Bogomazov,
                    R. Bush,
                    K. Patel,
                    K. Sriram
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       May 2022
        Mailbox:    a.e.azimov@gmail.com,
                    eb@qrator.net,
                    randy@psg.com,
                    keyur@arrcus.com,
                    ksriram@nist.gov
        Pages:      12
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-24.txt

        URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9234

        DOI:        10.17487/RFC9234

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). Existing
approaches to leak prevention rely on marking routes by operator
configuration, with no check that the configuration corresponds to
that of the External BGP (eBGP) neighbor, or enforcement of the two
eBGP speakers agreeing on the peering relationship. This document
enhances the BGP OPEN message to establish an agreement of the
peering relationship on each eBGP session between autonomous systems
in order to enforce appropriate configuration on both sides.
Propagated routes are then marked according to the agreed
relationship, allowing both prevention and detection of route leaks.

This document is a product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Official
Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the 
standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this 
memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC