Re: Can one Destination Address appear in both Tunnel Encap Attribute and in MP_REACH_NLRI ?

Hi Rajiv,

Section 13 paragraph 5th states about performing origin validation on IP Address of Tunnel Endpoint to help avoid attack vectors your describing (in an event where the tunnel endpoint address is different than a nexthop across inter-as.

<snip>
Before sending a packet through the tunnel identified in a particular
   TLV of a Tunnel Encapsulation attribute, it may be advisable to use
   BGP Origin Validation to obtain the following additional assurances:

   o  the origin AS of the route carrying the Tunnel Encapsulation
      attribute is correct;

   o  the origin AS of the route to the IP address specified in the
      Tunnel Endpoint sub-TLV is correct, and is the same AS that is
      specified in the Tunnel Endpoint sub-TLV.
</snip>

Regards,
Keyur

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 4:07 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>, Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>, Srihari Sangli <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Can one Destination Address appear in both Tunnel Encap Attribute and in MP_REACH_NLRI ?


One of the things that is strikingly problematic in allowing BGP NH and Tunnel Endpoint to be different is that it could be used as an attack vector (node A advertises a route with NH =A & tunnel endpoint = node B, so node B gets bombarded with unwanted traffic (in fact, node B may not even have any BGP, or not have a particular BGP route, or..).

This would be a big red flag for many of us.

--
Cheers,
Rajiv

PS: Now, what if node A uses two IPv6 addresses – one as the NH, and the other as the tunnel endpoint. That’s a legit case, one could argue.


From: Idr <[email protected]> on behalf of "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 6:32 AM
To: Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>, Srihari Sangli <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Can one Destination Address appear in both Tunnel Encap Attribute and in MP_REACH_NLRI ?

Well indeed the draft is very underspecified in this space..

The fun starts when next hop from NLRI is unreachable while tunnel end point is. Does it mean that given path is not going to be considered for best path selection ?

And we can go further ... say bgp uses selective next hops and is set to only consider /24 and higher and NH from NLRI does not meet those criteria ... but tunnel endpoint is reachable over default route - what happens then ?

See what strikes me the most is the mandatory nature of endpoint TLV and no good description of various cases when NH in NLRI != Tunnel endpoint address. If there are equal tunnel endpoint may be optional.

Thx,
R.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:33 AM Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:25:13AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Srihari,
>
> Can you comment on the expected BGP next hop validation behaviour ?
>
> Can you also comment on the next hop BGP is installing the prefixes to RIB
> with ?
>
> Is tunnel endpoint now the NH BGP is asking RIB to track ?

My impression of the draft is that handling of BGP NH and address from
Tunnel Encap attribute is different. BGP NH is tracked in RIB and
recursivery resolved, could be used to daisy-chain encapsulation in RIB
(section 7). In contrast, the address from the Tunnel attribute is just
passed to FIB as encapsulation action argument.

But it is true that this part of the draft is a bit blurry and would
definitely need more clear wording.

--
Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr