Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: do not filter your customers
From: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:49:38 -0500

I think if we asked telstra why they didn't filter their customer some
answer like:
1) we did, we goofed, oops!
2) we don't it's too hard
3) filters? what?

I suspect in the case of 1 it's a software problem that needs more
belts/suspenders
I suspect in the case of 2 it's a problem that could be shown to be
simpler with some resource-certification in place
I suspect 3 is not likely... (or I hope so).

So, even without defining what a leak is, providing a tool to better
create/verify filtering would be a boon.



Yes, I agree!

What I'd hate to see is:

4) We fully deployed BGPSEC, and RPKI, and upgraded our
infrastructure, and retooled provisioning, operations and processes
to support it all fully, and required our customers and peers to use it,
and even then this still happened - WTF was the point?

I think this is the point:
<https://twitter.com/#!/atoonk/status/165245731429564416>


This "leak" thing is a key vulnerability that simply can't be brushed
aside - that's the crux of my frustration with the current effort.

You seem to think that there's some extension/modification to BGPSEC
that would fix route leaks in addition to the ASPATH issues that
BGPSEC addresses right now.  Have you written this up anywhere?  I
would be interested to read it.

--Richard


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]