joel jaeggli wrote:
> The case where routine maintance creates temporary blackholes is
> basically ubiquitious were you attempting to use urp strict.

oh indeed - I've been at the receiving end of exactly this type of
blackholing.  Very annoying.  But I just wonder if urpf is the best tool
to hammer this particular nail in.  Sriram implicitly points out that
the term "customer cone" is a rather vague concept, and once you add the
vagaries of peering cones, it gets a lot worse.  From an anecdotal point
of view, people route traffic all over the place, and the further you
get away from the traffic endpoints, the more difficult
source-validation filtering becomes.

I suspect Sriram's proposed methodology is not going to be as useful as
it might seem in production networks because he's making an assumption
that the list of valid source paths can be built up by creating a union
of all source ASNs and applying that to the union of all interfaces
which are identified as feasible paths, intersected with the list of
interfaces with feasible path urpf enabled.  Going back to his diagram,
what if AS1 announces a prefix over a different transit e.g. AS6, but
not AS4 or AS5?  Then they issue traffic with a source address from that
prefix. The only way to handle this situation is with loose urpf, which
is a nice way of saying that enhanced urpf would cause breakage in this
situation.

I'm raising this because we run an as112 server at INEX and we've
observed a surprisingly large quantity of traffic directed towards the
anycast address from IP addresses from all over the world which come
over the IXP fabric, but which we can't imagine how it arrives there,
e.g. traffic from apnic + latam regions, etc.  While I appreciate that
this is anecdotal, it's a real enough observation for me to suspect that
the level of decoupling between bgp announcements (i.e. return path
traffic) and forward path routing is something that would cause enhanced
urpf to cause blackholing on production networks.

Nick

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to