netsec-sig - [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance
Subject: Internet2 Network Security SIG
List archive
- From: Karl Newell <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 16:13:43 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: internet2.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;internet2.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=internet2.edu;
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:0
As we make progress on our BGP flowspec testing and pilot, we’ll periodically ask this group for some guidance. Our first question is related to BGP session/family establishment.
Our preference is to add the flow family to our existing BGP sessions, so we can rely on flowspec validation (requires flowspec routes to align with best unicast routes). We would like to set
a peer max-prefix limit on the flow family; there is a maximum number of flowspec routes supported on the Juniper MX960. If we use the existing BGP session, exceeding the flow max-prefix will tear down the session which tears down the unicast family as well. One alternative is to use a separate session for flowspec. We’ll need to disable flowspec validation and rely on peer prefix lists. Options:
i. Clearly communicate max-prefix limit and its implications (possible unicast teardown)
ii. Configure a limit without a teardown but a peer could send an excessive amount of flowspec routes
Thoughts, comments, questions? Cheers, Karl -- Karl Newell Cyberinfrastructure Security Engineer Internet2 520-344-0459 |
- [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Karl Newell, 05/23/2018
- Re: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Andrew Gallo, 05/23/2018
- Re: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Garrett, Seth B, 05/23/2018
- Re: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Dale W. Carder, 05/24/2018
- Re: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Garrett, Seth B, 05/23/2018
- Re: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Brad Fleming, 05/23/2018
- RE: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Michael Hare, 05/23/2018
- Re: [Security-WG] BGP Flowspec guidance, Andrew Gallo, 05/23/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.