Tag Archives: IETF

BFD in the new Avatar

 

BFDWe all love Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) and cant possibly imagine our lives without it. We love it so much that we were ready with sabers and daggers drawn when we approached IEEE to let BFD control the individual links inside a LAG — something thats traditionally done by LACP.

Having done that, you would imagine that people would have settled down for a while (after their small victory dance of course) — but no, not the folks in the BFD WG. We are now working on a new enhancement that really takes BFD to the next level.

There isnt anything egregiously wrong or missing per se in BFD today. Its just not very optimal in certain scenarios and we’re trying to plug those holes (and doing our bit to ensure that folks in data comm industry have ample work and remain perennially employed).

Ok, lets not be modest – there are some scenarios where it doesnt work (as we shall see).

So what are we fixing here?

Slow Start

Well for one, BFD takes awfully looooong to bring up the session. Remember BFD starts with sedate timers and then slowly picks up (each side needs to come to an agreement on the rate at which they will send packets) . So it takes a while before BFD can really be used for path/end node liveliness detection. If BFD is being used to validate an MPLS path/LSP then it will take a few additional seconds for BFD to come up because of the LSP ping bootstrapping procedures (RFC 5884).

In certain deployments, this delay is bad and we want to eliminate it. It is expected that some MPLS deployments would require traffic engineered LSPs to be created dynamically, driven by external applications as in Software Defined Networks (SDN). It is operationally critical to ensure that the forwarding paths are up (via BFD) before the applications start utilizing the newly created tunnels. We cant hence wait for BFD to take its time in coming up since the applications are ready to push data down the tunnels. So, something needs to be done to get BFD to come up FAST!

This is an issue in SDN domains where a centralized controller is managing and maintaining the dynamic network. Since the tunnels are being engineered by this centralized entity we want to be really sure that the new tunnel is up before sending traffic down that path. In the absence of additional control protocols (eg. RSVP) we might want to use BFD to ensure that the path is up before using it. Current BFD, with large set up times, can become a bottle neck. If the centralized controller can quickly verify the forwarding path, it can steer the traffic to the traffic engineered tunnel very quickly without adversely affecting the service.

The problem exacerbates as the scale of the network and the number of traffic engineered tunnels increase.

Unidirectional Forwarding Path Validation

The “B” in BFD, stands for “Bi-directional” (in case you missed that). The protocol was originally defined to verify bidirectional connectivity between two nodes. This means that when you run BFD between routers A and B, then both A and B come to know when either router goes down (or when something nasty happens to the link). However, there are many scenarios where only one of the routers is interested in verifying the data plane continuity between the two nodes (e.g., static route using BFD to validate reachability to the next-hop router OR a Unidirectional tunnel using BFD to validate reachability to the egress node). In such cases, validating the reverse direction is not required.

However, traditional BFD requires the other side to maintain the entire BFD state even if its not interested in the liveliness of the remote end.  So if you have “n” routers using a particular gateway, then the gateway has to maintain “n” BFD sessions with all its clients. This is not required and can easily be done away with.

Anycast Addresses

Anycast addressing is used for high availability, fast recovery, load balancing and dispersed deployments where the IGPs direct the traffic to the nearest server(s) within a group of potential servers, all sharing the same Anycast address. BFD as defined today is stateful, and hence cannot work with Anycast addresses.

With the growing need to use Anycast addresses for higher reliability (DNS, multicast, 6to4, etc) there is a need for a BFD variant that can work with Anycast addresses.

BFD Fault Isolation

BFD works in a binary state – it either tells you that the session is UP or its DOWN. In case of failures it doesnt help you identify and localize the fault. Using other tools to isolate the fault may not necessarily work as the OAM packets may not follow the exact same path as the BFD packets (e.g., when ECMP is employed).

There is hence a need for a BFD variant that has some capabilities that can help in fault isolation.

So, where does this lead to?

We have attempted to fix all the issues that i have described above in a new BFD variant that we call the “Seamless BFD” (S-BFD). Its stateless and the receiver (or the reflector) responds with an S-BFD response packet whenever it receives an S-BFD packet from the source. You can imagine this as a ping-pong game between the source and the destination routers. The source (or the client in S-BFD speak) wants to check if the path to the destination (or the Reflector in S-BFD speak) is UP or the reflector is UP and sends an S-BFD “ping” packet. The Reflector upon receiving this, responds with a S-BFD “Pong” packet.  The client upon receiving the “Pong” knows that the Reflector is alive and starts using the path.

Each Reflector selects a well known “Discriminator” that all the other devices in the network know about. This can be statically configured, or a routing protocol can be used to flood/distribute this information. We could use OSPF/IS-IS within an AS and BGP across the ASes. Any clinet that wants to send an S-BFD packet to this Reflector (or a server if it helps) sends the S-BFD packet with the peer’s Discriminator value.

A reflector receiving an S-BFD packet with its own Discriminator value responds with a S-BFD packet. It must NOT transmit any BFD packet based on a local timer expiration.

A router can also advertise more than one Discriminator value for others to use. In such cases it should accept all S-BFD packets addressed to any of those Discriminator values. Why would somebody do that?

You could, if you want to implement some sort of redundancy. A node could choose to terminate S-BFD packets with different Discriminator values on different line cards for load distribution (works for architectures where a BFD controller in HW resides on a line card). Two nodes can now have multiple S-BFD sessions between them (similar to micro-BFD sessions that we have defined for the LAG in RFC 7130) — where each terminates on a different line card (demuxed using different Discriminator values). The aggregate BFD session will  only go down when all the component S-BFD sessions go down. Hence the aggregate BFD session between the two nodes will remain alive as long as there at least one component S-BFD session alive. This is another use case that can be added to S-BFD btw!

This helps in the SDN environments where you want to verify the forwarding path before actually using it. With S-BFD you no longer need to wait for the session to come up. The centralized controller can quickly use S-BFD to determine if the path is up. If the originating node receives an S-BFD response from the destination then it knows that the end point is alive and this information can be passed to the controller.

Similarly applications in the SDN environments can quickly send a S-BFD packet to the destination. If they receive an S-BFD response then they know that the path can be used.

This also alleviates the issue of maintaining redundant BFD sesssion states on the servers since they only need to respond with S-BFD packets.

Authentication becomes a slight challenge since the reflector is not keeping track of the crypto sequence numbers (remember the point was to make it stateless!). However, this isnt an insurmountable problem and can be fixed.

For more sordid details refer to the IETF draft in the BFD WG which explains the Seamless BFD protocol and another one with the use-cases. I have not covered all use cases for Seamless BFD (S-BFD) and we have a few more described there in the use-case document.


Issues with how BFD is currently implemented over LAGs

The BFD standards dont explicitly talk about how BFD should be implemented on Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs). This leaves a lot of room for imagination and vendors have implemented their own proprietary mechanisms to make BFD work on LAGs. Now, there is only this much room for innovation and most vendors have naturally arrived at similar techniques to implement interoperable BFD over LAGs. So, what makes BFD so sticky to implement on LAGs?

BFD being an L3 protocol, is oblivious to the physical link that the BFD packets go out on. Usually, there is only one link associated with an L3 interface, and there is thus no ambiguity on the link that packet needs to go out on. However, when an IP interface is configured over a LAG, there are multiple constituent links that the packet can go out on, and BFD has to decide the link it wants to use for sending the packets out.

A LAG binds together several physical ports between two adjacent nodes so they appear to higher-layer protocols and applications as a single, higher bandwidth “virtual” pipe.

The problem with running BFD over a LAG is that without internal knowledge of the LAG structure it is impossible for BFD to guarantee a detection of anything but a full LAG shutdown within the BFD timeout period. The LAG shutdown is typically initiated by some LAG module. LAG timers are typically multiple times slower than the BFD detection timers (multiple 100ms vs. multiple 10ms of BFD). There is thus a need to bring some sort of determinism in how BFD runs over a LAG. There is also a need to detect member link failures much faster than what Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) allows.

Lets look at what implementations currently do to implement BFD on LAGs.

The simplest approach to run BFD on a LAG interface is to ignore the internal structure and treat the LAG as one “big, virtual pipe”.

Because there is no standard, vendors have implemented their own proprietary mechanisms to run BFD over LAG interfaces. Two examples are shown here.

Some implementations send BFD packets only over the “primary” member link of the LAG. Others spray BFD packets over all member links of the LAG. There are issues with both these designs.

In the first design, BFD will remain Up as long as the primary link is alive. If the primary link goes down, and another link is not selected as the primary, before BFD times out (around 30-50ms), then the BFD session on the LAG comes crashing down. Problems arise as BFD, in this design, is oblivious to the presence of other member links in the LAG. If a non-primary link goes down, the BFD session remains unaffected as it can still send and receive BFD packets over the primary link. Since the BFD session is Up, other routers in the network continue sending traffic meant to egress out of this interface. As expected from the LAG, all traffic egressing out of this interface gets load distributed on all LAG member links. Now, there is one link thats down. All traffic sent over that failed link gets dropped, till the LAG manager detects this and removes it from the LAG.

In the second design, BFD packets are sprayed over all the member links of a LAG. This is done naively via round-robin, where each BFD packet is sent using the subsequent member link, in a round-robin fashion. It solves the problem of BFD going down because of the primary link going down, but it still does not solve the problem of traffic getting lost when one of the member link goes down. This is because, when a member link goes down, BFD remains up and traffic continues to go over the link that has failed till a higher layer protocol (usually LACP or the LAG Manager) detects this and removes the offending link from the LAG.

The above two designs defeat the core purpose of a BFD, which is to detect faults between the two forwarding engines. In each design traffic gets lost on a failed link till some protocol other than BFD detects this and removes that link from the LAG. The timers associated with the other protocol are an order of magnitude higher than BFD.

Operators have since long expressed a need to be able to detect the failed links fast so that their traffic doesnt get lost. The idea is to get BFD to take charge of the LAG and make it responsible for maintaining the list of active links in a LAG. This way we can use the BFD fast timers to quickly detect link failures.

One could argue that there are native Ethernet OAM mechanisms (.1ag, .3ah) that can be used to detect link failures in a LAG, and one need not rely on slow protocols like LACP or the LAG manager. The reality is that operators who have deployed BFD in their IP/MPLS networks want a common failure detection mechanism and dont want a mix of different technologies.

To solve the above mentioned issues I have co-authored an IETF document that proposes running BFD on each constituent link of the LAG. We call the BFD sessions running on each link a “micro BFD session”. We call this mode of BFD on LAGs as BLM – BFD on Lag Members.

BLM is an umbrella BFD session that contains information about the LAG (or the aggregated interface) that its running on. It consists of a set of micro BFD sessions that are running on each constituent link of the LAG. And it contains a state that we call the “Concluded State”, which describes the overall state of the LAG (Up, Down, AdminDown).

Each micro BFD session is a regular RFC 5880 and RFC 5881 compliant BFD session. Only Asynchronous mode is supported for the micro BFD sessions as the sole reason for running BFD on each member link is to verify the link connectivity. The Echo function for the micro BFD sessions is not recommended as it requires twice as many packets to achieve a particular Detection time as does the pure Asynchronous mode.

At least one system MUST take the Active role (possibly both). The micro BFD sessions on the member links are independent BFD sessions. They use their own unique, local discriminator values, maintain their own set of state variables and have their own independent state machine. Typically each micro BFD session will have the same timer values, however, nothing precludes the possibility of having different timer values among the different micro BFD sessions belonging to the same LAG.

A session begins with the periodic, slow transmission of BFD Control packets. When bidirectional communication is achieved, the BFD session becomes Up. The LAG manager is informed at this point, and the member link becomes an active link of the LAG.

If the micro session goes Down, the transmission of Control packets goes back to the slow rate. The LAG Manager is informed which removes the member link from the LAG.

Once a session has been declared Down, it cannot come back up until the remote end first signals that it is down (by leaving the Upstate), thus implementing a three-way handshake.

A session MAY be kept administratively down by entering the AdminDown state and sending an explanatory diagnostic code in the Diagnostic field.

In short, its pretty much the same as a standard BFD session.

This solves the issues that i had described in the earlier two designs. The micro BFD sessions will quickly detect a failed link, and will instantly remove it from the LAG. Traffic that was earlier egressing out over the failed link, will now get hashed to a different link in the LAG. This results in zero traffic loss on the LAG.

You can read more about our proposal here (more on how it evolved within IETF here).

Recognizing the need for running BFD on all member links, various vendors support their own proprietary, un-interoperable implementation of BFD over LAGs. We’re hoping that our IETF proposal to standardize this behavior will bring some order to the chaos thats out there and a relief to the providers who are stuck with proprietary solutions.


Catching Corrupted OSPF Packets!

I was having a discussion with Paul Jakma (a friend, co-author in a few IETF drafts, a routing protocols expert, the guy behind Quagga, the list just goes on ..) some time back on a weird problem that he came across at a customer network where the OSPF packets were being corrupted in between being read off the wire and having CRC and IP checksum verified and being delivered to OSPF stack. While the problem was repeatable within 30 minutes on that particular network, he could never reproduce it on his VM network (and neither could the folks who reported this problem).

Eventually, for some inexplicable reason, he asked them to turn on MD5 authentication (with a tweak to drop duplicate sequence number packets – duplicate packets as the trigger of the problems being a theory). With this, their problems changed from “weird” to “adjacencies just start dropping, with lots of log messages about MD5 failures”!

So it appears that the customer had some kind of corruption bug in custom parts of their network stack, on input, such that OSPF gets handed a good long sequence of corrupt packets – all of which  (we dont know how many) seem to pass the internet checksum and then cause very odd problems for OSPF.

So, is this a realistic scenario and can this actually happen? While i have personally never experienced this, there are chances of this happening because of any of the following reasons:

o PCI transmission error (PCI parallel had parity checks, but not always enabled, PCI express has a 32bit CRC though)

o memory bus error (though, all routers and hosts should use ECC RAM)

o bad memory (same)

o bad cache (CPUs don’t always ECC their caches – Sun its seems was badly bitten by this; While the last few generations of Intel and AMD CPU do this, what about all those embedded CPUs that we use in the routers?)

o logic errors, particularly in network hardware drivers

o finally, CRCs and the internet checksum are not very good and its not impossible for wire-corrupted packets to get past link, IP AND OSPF CRC/checksums.

The internet checksum, which is used for the OSPF packet checksum, is incredibly weak. There are various papers out there, particularly ones by Partridge (who helped author the internet checksum RFC!) which cover this, basically it offers very little protection:

- it can’t detect re-ordering of 2-byte aligned words
– it can’t detect various bit flips that keep the 1s complement sum the same (e.g. 0x0000 to 0xffff and vice versa)

Even the link-layer CRC also is not perfect, and Partridge has co-authored papers detailling how corrupted packets can even get past both CRC and internet checksum.

So what choice do the operators have for catching corrupted packets in the SW?

Well, they could either use the incredibly poor internet checksum that exists today or they could turn on cryptographic authentication (keyed MD5 with RFC 2328 or different HMAC-SHA variants with RFC 5709) and catch all such failures. The former would not always work as there are errors that can creep in with these algorithms. The latter would work but there are certain disadvantages  is using cryptographic HMACs purely for integrity checking. The algorithms require more computation, which may be noticable on less powerful and/or energy-sensitive platforms. Additionally, the need to configure and synchronize the keying material is an additional administrative burden. I had posted a survey on Nanog some time back where i had asked the operators if they had ever turned on crypto protection to detect such failures and i received a couple of responses offline where they alluded to doing this to prevent checksum failures.

Paul and I wrote a short IETF draft some time back where we propose to change the checksum algorithm used for verifying OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 packets. We would only like to upgrade the very weak packet checksum with something thats more stronger without having to go with the full crypto hash protection way. You can find all the gory details here!


BFD Generic Cryptographic Authentication

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) specification includes five different types of authentication schemes: Simple Password, Keyed Message Digest 5 (MD5), Meticulous Keyed MD5, Keyed Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA-1) and Meticulous SHA-1. In the simple password scheme of authentication, the passwords are exchanged in the clear text on the network and anyone with physical access to the network can learn the password and compromise the security of the BFD domain.

It was discovered that collisions can be found in MD5 algorithm in less than 24 hours, making MD5 insecure. Further research has verified this result and shown other ways to find collisions in MD5 hashes.

It should however be noted that these attacks may not necessarily result in direct vulnerabilities in Keyed-MD5 as used in BFD authentication purposes, because the colliding message may not necessarily be a syntactically correct protocol packet. However, there is a need felt to move away from MD5 towards more complex and difficult to break hash algorithms.

In Keyed SHA-1 and Meticulous SHA-1, the BFD routers share a secret key which is used to generate a keyed SHA-1 digest for each packet and a monotonically increasing sequence number scheme is used to prevent replay attacks.

Like MD5 there have been reports of attacks on SHA-1. Such attacks do not mean that all the protocols using SHA-1 for authentication are at risk. However, it does mean that SHA-1 should be replaced as soon as possible and should not be used for new applications.

However, if SHA-1 is used in the Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) construction then collision attacks currently known against SHA-1 do not apply. The new attacks on SHA-1 have no impact on the security of HMAC-SHA-1.

I have written an IETF document that proposes two new authentication types – the cryptographic authentication and the meticulous cryptographic authentication . These can be used to specify any authentication algorithm for authenticating and verifying the BFD packets (aka key agility). In addition to this, this memo also explains how HMAC-SHA authentication can be used for BFD.

HMAC can be used, without modifying any hash function, for calculating and verifying the message authentication values. It verifies both the data integrity and the authenticity of a message.

By definition, HMAC requires a cryptographic hash function. We propose to use any one of SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512 for this purpose to authenticate the BFD packets.

I recently co-authored an IETF draft that does BFD’s security and authentication mechanism’s gap analysis for the KARP WG – that draft can be found here.


AboveNet Hijacks Africa Online!

Internet, only a few weeks ago, had seen Pakistan Telecom Authority (PTA) hijacking the IP prefixes announced by Youtube, as protest against some videos that had been put up there, knocking millions off, all around the globe from accessing Youtube. I wrote about this here. This time its an ISP from USA and Europe, AboveNet (AS 6461) thats hijacked prefix announced and owned by Africa Online (AS 36915).

AboveNet inexplicably started announcing reachability to one of the prefixes (194.9.82.0/24) owned by Africa Online. It took AboveNet more than 22 hours since the problem was first reported, to fix it. Wonder what took them so long! As a result of this prefix hijack, potentially millions of users in Kenya or Africa, all behind 194.9.82.0/24, lost connectivity to the Internet. In isolation 194.9.82.0/24 is not a huge space, but add a couple of NATs and the number of users easily swells to millions. What this means for you and me, who are not being served by Africa Online is, that we lose connectivity to all the websites being hosted behind this IP address block. Imagine what it would do to the Internet if emergency services, banks, google were being hosted there!

Lets see why users in Kenya would lose total connectivity to the Internet:

A user accesses google.com with a (NATed or otherwise) source IP address 194.9.82.x. Google graciously responds, and the IP packet carries the destination IP 194.9.82.x. Because AboveNet has announced reachability to this IP address block, all traffic destined to 194.9.82.x comes to AboveNet where it gets royally dumped, while the user sitting in Kenya (or Africa) is still hopelessly waiting for the packet to arrive.

So, why are the service providers all over the world preferring the route announcement from AboveNet over the one originated from Africa Online?

Well, thats unfortunately how Internet, and my favorite routing protocol – BGP, works!

In BGP, the route advertisement from the provider which has a better vantage point on the Internet, usually wins.

In this particular case both AboveNet(AS 6461) and Africa Online (AS 36915) announced the route to 194.9.82.0/24 . AboveNet, operating from US, sits much closer to the core as compared to Africa Online, and is thus better connected to the other networks than the latter. The AS_PATH length thus seen by the other service providers for the route advertised by AboveNet is much shorter than the one advertised by Africa Online. As a result of this, other BGP speakers pick up the route advertised by AboveNet against the route advertised by Africa Online.

The figure below, constructed using BGPlay from RIPE NCC, shows a snapshot of the routing activity for 194.9.82.0/24 during the period when it was hijacked. The colored lines indicate the path different ASes would take to reach this prefix. Clearly most of the ASes believed AboveNet to be a better path for 194.9.82.0/24.

Vantage Point on the Internet

This is how BGP works and mind you, this isnt broken.

Whats broken is our disability to verify the claim of a service provider when it announces ownership of an address block in BGP. Restrictive route filtering can be applied where the providers only accept the specific prefixes allocated to the customers or where the upstream accepts only specific prefixes allocated to the ISPs, but this is too cumbersome and rarely works. As the matter stands today, there isn’t any clean way to know if the reachability announced by your friendly peer is genuine or whether the provider has a feasible path to the destinations advertised. This needs to be fixed and there is work going on towards this direction in the SIDR WG of IETF.

Can the service providers do something when they learn that an IP prefix has been hijacked by some AS? The answer, fortunately, to this is an unequivocal Yes.

A service provider can override BGP’s decision process in selecting the route advertisement with the shortest AS_PATH length by (i) manipulating the BGP path attribute like LOCAL_PREF since its checked before the AS_PATH length or (ii)  decreasing the weight of the offending peer you learn the hijacked route from (this would only work for routers connected  directly to AboveNet) (iii) Use regular expressions to filter all or the specific hijacked route advertisement from AS 6461 (AboveNet) so that the announcement from Africa Online wins. The legitimate route is now propagated to other parts of the world.

Each time an ISP inadvertently hijacks someone else’s address block it risks to lose some amount of credibility in the service provider world. Their names are splashed on the mails/PPTs in NANOG and IETF whenever there’s a discussion on interdomain security or on the blogs all over the world.

Fortunately for AboveNet, their hijacking didn’t throw millions off popular websites like Youtube, Google, Yahoo! etc. That would have attracted a LOT more attention than what this event did. When PTA had hijacked YouTube, it was all over the news and there were columns running in Wall Street Journal and New York Times about how tenuous the Internet architecture is. Also what unfortunately went in favor of AboveNet was that the affected users were not in US/Europe/Japan, but were in a relatively silent African subcontinent.


Pakistan Hijacks Youtube!

We’ve been reminded yet again, of how vulnerable the Internet architecture is, to malicious attacks and simple mis-configuration (oversight?) from the service provider side. A week ago, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority released an order instructing the country’s 70 odd ISPs to block Youtube.com until further notice. The ISPs acting on this directive could have installed access-control lists (ACLs) on all their router interfaces dropping packets bound to this website, but they instead, chose a more convoluted way of blocking traffic bound to this site – they created a more specific route pointing to a NULL (or a discard) interface, thereby black-holing all traffic bound to this address. Fair enough, this is also a way to drop traffic since the former would entail augmenting all existing ACL filtering policies on all router interfaces. Whats intriguing is how this route “accidentally” leaked into BGP and got advertised to PCCW (AS 3491), the upstream provider providing services to Pakistan Telecom (AS 17557), from where it propagated further to other parts of the Internet.

Youtube advertises 208.65.152.0/22 and Pakistan Telecom advertised a more specific route, 208.65.153.0/24, to its provider PCCW . PCCW, like most ISPs, without validating the prefix announcements based on Regional Internet Registry (RIR) allocations or even Internet Routing Registry (IRR) objects, further propagated this BGP UPDATE to its peers. Within no time, the erroneous BGP announcement permeated across large parts of the internet, resulting in all traffic bound to Youtube, to go towards Pakistan, where it would end up getting blackholed. Youtube was thus successfully “hijacked” by Pakistan Telecom .

I dont intend to discuss, whether this was done maliciously or whether it was an error on part of the PT, but the whole saga raises uncomfortable questions on the security and frailty of the Internet as it works today. Currently, the larger ISPs tend to trust the network providers that they are connected to and work on the tenuous assumption that the smaller providers would not illegitimately “hijack” someone else’s IP address and will behave decorously and only announce the IPs that they own. Patently, this doesn’t seem to be working out.

An attacker can masquerade as a big financial website by “hijacking” all traffic bound towards the legitimate website, thereby wreaking havoc on the gullible users. It should be noted that this sort of attack is more potent and dangerous than the spam mails that we often receive in our mailboxes, asking us to update and enter our bank details. In the latter cases, an alert user can always detect, that the server on which the page is loaded does not belong to the bank or the financial institution that the mail purports to be. However when the IP address block is “hijacked”, there are no such defenses.

Internet connectivity is vital in todays age, with a lot of emergency services being routed over the Internet. Imagine a natural disaster or a terrorist attack followed by an IP address block “hijack”. The full repercussions of what all can be achieved with this kind of an attack makes your mind spin and wobble.

A timeline created by Renesys, which provides real-time monitoring services, says that it took about 15 seconds for large Pacific-rim providers to direct YouTube.com traffic to the Pakistan ISP, and about 45 seconds for the central routers on which most of the Internet traffic relies, to misroute the traffic.

So, what happened to Pakistan’s Internet Connectivity as it attracted zillions of bytes of data intended for Youtube.com? It probably went down as PT could not have handled that massive amount of data, rendering millions inside Pakistan without any Internet connectivity.

In the coming days i would discuss what BGP Prefix Hijacking is and what it entails to protect the Internet from this and the work being done in IETF wrt this.

Also read about AboveNet hijacking Africa Online here.


Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols

Most of us believe that using cryptographic authentication methods (MD5, etc) for the routing protocols running inside our networks really makes them very secure. Well, not really ..

We have published RFC 6039 that explains how each routing protocol can be exploited despite using the cryptographic authentication mechanisms endorsed by the IETF community.

To cite an example, a simple IP header attack on OSPF or RIP can result in the two adjacent routers bringing down the peering relationship between them. This can, in the worst case, blackhole a substantial amount of data traffic inside the network, something that will certainly not go well with the customers!

So how can an OSPF adjacency be brought down?

OSPF neighbors on the broadcast, NBMA and point-to-multipoint networks are identified by the IP address in the IP header. Because the IP header is not covered by the MAC in the cryptographic authentication scheme as described in RFC 2328, an attack can be made exploiting this vulnerability.

R1 sends an authenticated HELLO to R2. This HELLO is captured and replayed back to R1, changing the source IP in the IP header to that of R2.

R1 not finding itself in HELLO would deduce that the connection is not bidirectional and would bring down the adjacency!

The RFC also discusses some issues that we found with Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol thats very frequently used in the service provider networks.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers