IDR and SIDR K. Sriram Internet-Draft D. Montgomery Intended status: Informational US NIST Expires: September 10, 2015 March 9, 2015 Methods for Detection and Mitigation of BGP Route Leaks draft-sriram-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation-00 Abstract In [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition], the authors have provided a definition of the route leak problem, and also enumerated several types of route leaks. In this document, we first examine which of those route-leak types are detected and mitigated by the existing origin validation [RFC 6811] and BGPSEC path validation [I- D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]. Where the current BGPSEC protocol doesn't offer a solution, this document suggests an enhancement that would extend the route-leak detection and mitigation capability of BGPSEC. The solution can be implemented in BGP without necessarily tying it to BGPSEC. Incorporating the solution in BGPSEC is one way of implementing it in a secure way. We do not claim to have provided a solution for all possible types of route leaks, but the solution covers several, especially considering some significant route-leak attacks or occurrences that have been observed in recent years. The document also includes a stopgap method for detection and mitigation of route leaks for the phase when BGPSEC (path validation) is not yet deployed but only origin validation is deployed. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2015. Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Mechanisms for Detection and Mitigation of Route Leaks . . . 3 2.1. Route Leak Protection (RLP) Field Encoding by Sending Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Recommended Actions at a Receiving Router . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. Detection and Mitigation of Route Leaks of Type 5 and Type 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Stopgap Solution when Only Origin Validation is Deployed . . 9 4. Design Rationale and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Downside of 'Up (Towards Provider AS)' Indication in the RLP Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Possibility of Abuse of '01' (i.e. 'Do not Propagate Up') Indication in the RLP Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Introduction In [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition], the authors have provided a definition of the route leak problem, and also enumerated several types of route leaks. In this document, we first examine which of those route-leak types are detected and mitigated by the existing Origin Validation (OV) [RFC6811] and BGPSEC path validation [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]. For the rest of this document, we use the term BGPSEC as synonymous with path validation. The BGPSEC Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 protocol provides cryptographic protection for some aspects of BGP update messages. OV and BGPSEC together offer mechanisms to protect against mis-originations and hijacks of IP prefixes as well as man- in-the-middle (MITM) AS path modifications. Route leaks (see [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition] and references cited at the back) are another type of vulnerability in the global BGP routing system against which BGPSEC so far offers only partial protection. For the types of route leaks enumerated in [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition], where the current BGPSEC protocol doesn't offer a solution, this document suggests an enhancement that would extend the detection and mitigation capability of BGPSEC. The solution can be implemented in BGP without necessarily tying it to BGPSEC. Incorporating the solution in BGPSEC is one way of implementing it in a secure way. We do not claim to provide a solution for all possible types of route leaks, but the solution covers several relevant types, especially considering some significant route-leak occurrences that have been observed frequently in recent years. The document also includes (in Section 3) a stopgap method for detection and mitigation of route leaks for the phase when BGPSEC (path validation) is not yet deployed but only origin validation is deployed. 2. Mechanisms for Detection and Mitigation of Route Leaks Referring to the enumeration of route leaks discussed in [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition], Table 1 summarizes the route-leak detection capability offered by OV and BGPSEC for different types of route leaks. (Note: Route filtering is not considered here in this table. Please see Section 3.) A detailed explanation of the contents of Table 1 is as follows. It is readily observed that route leaks of Types 1, 5, 6, and 7 are not detected by OV or even by BGPSEC. Type 2 route leak involves changing a prefix to a subprefix (i.e. more specific); such a modified update will fail BGPSEC checks. Clearly, Type 3 route leak involves hijacking and hence can be detected by OV. In the case of Type 3 route leak, there would be no existing ROAs to validate a re- originated prefix or subprefix, and hence the update will be considered Invalid by OV. Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Type of Route Leak | Detection Coverage and Comments | +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Type 1: U-Turn with Full Prefix | Neither OV nor BGPSEC (in its | | | current form) detects Type 1. | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Type 2: U-Turn with More | In OV, the ROA maxLength may | | Specific Prefix | offer detection of Type 2 in | | | some cases; BGPSEC (in its | | | current form) always detects | | | Type 2. | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Type 3: Prefix Hijack with Data | OV by itself detects Type 3; | | Path to Legitimate Origin | BGPSEC does not detect Type 3. | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Type 4: Leak of Internal | For internal prefixes never | | Prefixes and Accidental | meant to be seen (i.e. routed) | | Deaggregation | on the Internet, OV helps | | | detect their leak; they might | | | either have no covering ROA or | | | have a ROA-AS0 to always filter | | | them. In the case of accidental | | | deaggregation, OV may offer | | | some detection due to ROA | | | maxLength. BGPSEC does not | | | catch Type 4. | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Type 5: Lateral ISP-ISP-ISP | Neither OV nor BGPSEC (in its | | Leak | current form) detects Type 5. | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Type 6: Leak of Provider | Neither OV nor BGPSEC (in its | | Prefixes to Peer | current form) detects Type 6. | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Type 7: Leak of Peer Prefixes | Neither OV nor BGPSEC (in its | | to Provider | current form) detects Type 7. | +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ Table 1: Examination of Route-Leak Detection Capability of Origin Validation and Current BGPSEC Path Validation In the case of Type 4 leaks involving internal prefixes that are not meant to be routed in the Internet, they are likely to be detected by OV. That is because such prefixes might either have no covering ROA or have a ROA-AS0 to always filter them. In the case of Type 4 leaks that are due to accidental deaggregation, they may be detected due to violation of ROA maxLength. BGPSEC does not catch Type 4. However, route leaks of Type 4 are least problematic due to the following reasons. In the case of accidental deaggregation, the offending AS Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 is itself the legitimate destination of the leaked more-specific prefixes. Hence, in most cases of this type, the data traffic is neither misrouted not denied service. Also, leaked announcements of Type 4 are short-lived and typically withdrawn quickly following the announcements. Further, the MaxPrefix limit may kick in in some receiving routers and that helps limit the propagation of sometimes large number of leaked routes of Type 4. From the above, it is evident that in our proposed solution method, we need to focus primarily on route leaks of Types 1, 5, 6, and 7. In Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, we describe a simple addition to BGPSEC that facilitates cryptographically-enabled detection of route leaks of Types 1 and 7. Then in Section 2.3, we will explain how the same method as described in Section 2.1 can be utilized between ISPs (or ASes) to detect and mitigate route leaks of Types 5 and 6. 2.1. Route Leak Protection (RLP) Field Encoding by Sending Router The key principle is that, in the event of a route leak, a receiving router in a provider AS (e.g. referring to Figure 1, ISP2 (AS3) router) should be able to detect from the prefix-update that its customer AS (e.g. AS1 in Figure 1) SHOULD NOT have forwarded the update (towards the provider AS). This means that at least one of the ASes in the AS path of the update has indicated that it sent the update to its customer or peer AS, but forbade any subsequent 'Up' forwarding (i.e. from a customer AS to its provider AS). For this purpose, a Route Leak Protection (RLP) field to be set by a sending router is proposed to be used for each AS hop. Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 /\ /\ \ route-leak(P)/ \ propagated / \ / +------------+ peer +------------+ ______| ISP1 (AS2) |----------->| ISP2 (AS3)|----------> / ------------+ prefix(P) +------------+ route-leak(P) | prefix | \ update /\ \ propagated \ (P) / \ / \ ------- prefix(P) \ / \ update \ / \ \ /route-leak(P) \/ \/ / +---------------+ | customer(AS1) | +---------------+ Figure 1: Illustration of the basic notion of a route leak. For the purpose of route leak detection and mitigation proposed in this document, the RLP field value SHOULD be set to one of two values as follows: o 00: This is the default value (i.e. "nothing specified"), o 01: This is the 'Do not Propagate Up' indication; sender indicating that the prefix-update SHOULD NOT be forwarded 'Up' towards a provider AS. There are two different scenarios when a sending AS SHOULD set the '01' indication in a prefix-update: (1) when sending the prefix- update to a customer AS, and (2) to let a peer AS know not to forward the prefix-update 'Up' towards a provide AS. In essence, in both scenarios, the intent of '01' indication is that any receiving AS along the subsequent AS path SHOULD NOT forward the prefix-update 'Up' towards its (receiving AS's) provider AS. One may argue for an RLP field value (e.g. '10') to be used to specify 'Up' (i.e. towards provider AS) directionality. But in the interest of keeping the methodology simple, the choice of two RLP field values as defined above (00 - default, and 01 - 'Do not Propagate Up') is all that is needed. This two-state specification in the RLP field can be shown to work for detection and mitigation of route leaks of Types 1 and 7 readily (and also Types 5 and 6; see Section 2.3), which are the focus here. (Please see Section 4 for further discussion about the downside using 'Up' indication.) Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 In general, the proposed RLP encoding can be carried in BGP-4 [RFC4271] updates in any possible way, e.g., in a transitive community attribute. We consider BGPSEC as an example, where the RLP encoding can be accommodated in the existing Flags field and thereby secured using the existing BGPSEC path signatures. The Flags field is part of the Secure_Path Segment in BPGSEC updates [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]. It is one octet long, and one Flags field is available for each AS hop, and currently only the first bit is used in BGPSEC. So there are 7 bits that are currently unused in the Flags field. Two (or more if needed) of these bits can be designated for the RLP field. Since the BGPSEC protocol specification requires a sending AS to include the Flags field in the data that are signed over, the RLP field for each hop (assuming it would be part of the Flags field) will be protected under the sending AS's signature. 2.2. Recommended Actions at a Receiving Router We provide here an example set of receiver actions that work to detect and mitigate route leaks of Types 1 and 7 (in particular). This example algorithm serves as a proof of concept. However, other receiver algorithms or procedures can be designed (based on the same sender specification as in Section 2.1) and may perform with greater efficacy, and are by no means excluded. A recommended receiver algorithm for detecting a route leak is as follows: A receiving BGPSEC router SHOULD mark an update as a Route-Leak if ALL of the following conditions hold true: 1. The update is received from a customer AS. 2. It is Valid in accordance with the BGPSEC protocol. 3. The update has the RLP field set to '01' (i.e. 'Do not Propagate Up') indication for one or more hops (excluding the most recent) in the AS path. The reason for stating "excluding the most recent" in the above algorithm is as follows. The provider AS already knows that most recent hop in the update is from its customer AS to itself, and hence it does not need to rely on the RLP field value set by the customer for detection of route leaks. (See further discussion in Section 4.1.) After applying the above detection algorithm, a receiving router may use any policy-based algorithm of its own choosing to mitigate any Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 detected route leaks. An example receiver algorithm for mitigating a route leak is as follows: o If an update from a customer AS is marked as a Route-Leak, then the receiving router SHOULD prefer a Valid signed update from a peer or an upstream provider over the customer's update. The basic principle here is that the presence of '01' value in the RLP field corresponding to one or more AS hops in the AS path of an update coming from a customer AS informs a receiving router in a provider AS that a route leak is likely occurring. The provider AS then overrides the "prefer customer route" policy, and instead prefers a route learned from a peer or another upstream provider over the customer's route. A receiving router expects the RLP field value for any hop in the AS path to be either 00 or 01. However, if a different value (say, 10 or 11) is found in the RLP field, then an error condition will get flagged, and any further action is TBD. 2.3. Detection and Mitigation of Route Leaks of Type 5 and Type 6 The sender and receiver actions described in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 clearly help detect and mitigate route leaks of Types 1 and 7. With a slightly modified interpretation of the RLP encoding on the receiver side, they can be extended to detect lateral ISP-ISP- ISP route leaks (Type 5) as well as leaks of provider prefixes to peer (Type 6). A sending ISP router would set RLP field value to '01' indication towards a peer AS or a customer AS, following the same sender principles as described in Section 2.1. A recommended receiver algorithm for an ISP to detect a route leak of either Type 5 or Type 6 is as follows: A receiving BGPSEC router SHOULD mark an update as a Route-Leak if ALL of the following conditions hold true: 1. The update is received from a lateral ISP peer or a customer AS. 2. It is Valid in accordance with the BGPSEC protocol. 3. The update has the RLP field set to '01' indication for one or more hops (excluding the most recent) in the AS path. In the above algorithm, the receiving AS interprets the '01' indication slightly strongly (i.e. stronger than in Section 2.2) to mean "the update SHOULD NOT have been propagated laterally to a peer ISP like me either". The rationale here is based on the fact that Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 settlement-free ISP peers accept only customer prefix-routes from each other. The receiving AS applies the logic that if a preceding AS (excluding the most recent) set '01' indication, it means that the update was sent to a peer or a customer by the (preceding) AS, and the update should not be traversing a lateral peer-to-peer link subsequently. The receiver algorithm for mitigation is up to the discretion of the ISP. It may simply prefer another unmarked (i.e. not route-leak) update from a different peer or an upstream ISP over a marked update. 3. Stopgap Solution when Only Origin Validation is Deployed During a phase when BGPSEC path validation has not yet been deployed but only origin validation has been deployed, it would be good have a stopgap solution for route leaks. The stopgap solution can be in the form of construction of a prefix filter list from ROAs. A suggested procedure for constructing such a list comprises of the following steps: o ISP makes a list of all the ASes (Cust_AS_List) that are in its customer cone (ISP's own AS is also included in the list). (Some of the ASes in Cust_AS_List may be multi-homed to another ISP and that is OK.) o ISP downloads from the RPKI repositories a complete list (Cust_ROA_List) of valid ROAs that contain any of the ASes in Cust_AS_List. o ISP creates a list of all the prefixes (Cust_Prfx_List) that are contained in any of the ROAs in Cust_ROA_List. o Cust_Prfx_List is the allowed list of prefixes that is permitted by the ISP's AS, and will be forwarded by the ISP to upstream ISPs, customers, and peers. o Any prefix not in Cust_Prfx_List but announced by any of the ISP's customers is marked as a potential route leak. Then the ISP's router SHOULD prefer a Valid (i.e. valid according to origin validation) and 'not marked' update from a peer or an upstream provider over the customer's marked update for that prefix. Special considerations with regard to the above procedure may be needed for DDoS mitigation service providers. They typically originate or announce a DDoS victim's prefix to their own ISP on a short notice during a DDoS emergency. Some provisions would need to be made for such cases, and they can be determined with the help of inputs from DDoS mitigation service providers. Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 4. Design Rationale and Discussion In this section, we will try to provide design justifications for the methodology specified in Section 2, and also answer some anticipated questions. 4.1. Downside of 'Up (Towards Provider AS)' Indication in the RLP Field As we have shown in Section 2, route leak detection and mitigation can be performed without the use of 'Up' (i.e. from customer AS to provider AS) indication in the RLP field. The detection and mitigation action should primarily occur at a provider AS's router just as soon as a leaked update is received from a customer AS. At that point, a provider AS can be fooled if it merely looks to see if an offending customer AS has set an 'Up' indication in the RLP field. This is so since a customer AS intent on leaking a route can deliberately set "Not Specified (00)" indication in order to misguide its provider AS. So it seems better that a provider AS figures out that the update is moving in the 'Up' direction based only on its own (configuration-based) knowledge that the update is coming from one of its customer ASes. An 'Up' indication (if it were allowed) can be also potentially misused. For example, an AS in the middle can determine that a '01' (i.e. 'Do not Propagate Up') value already exists on one of the preceding AS hops in a received update's AS path. Then, said AS in the middle can deliberately set its own RLP field to signal 'Up', in which case the update may be erroneously marked as a route leak by a subsequent AS if it concludes that there was a valley in the AS path of the update. So there appears to be some possibility of misuse of 'Up' indication, and hence we proposed not including it in the RLP specification in Section 2. However, other proposals, if any, that aim to beneficially use an 'Up' indication in the RLP field would be worth discussing. 4.2. Possibility of Abuse of '01' (i.e. 'Do not Propagate Up') Indication in the RLP Field In reality, there appears to be no gain or incentive for an AS to falsely set its own RLP field to '01' (i.e. 'Do not Propagate Up') indication in an update that it originates or forwards. The purpose of a deliberate route leak by an AS is to attract traffic towards itself, but if the AS were to falsely set its own RLP field to '01' value, it would be effectively repelling some or all traffic away from itself for the prefix in question (see receiver algorithms in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3). Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 5. Summary It should be emphasized once again that the proposed route-leak detection method using the RLP encoding is not intended to cover all forms of route leaks. However, we feel that the solution covers several important types of route leaks, especially considering some significant route-leak attacks or occurrences that have been frequently observed in recent years. The solution can be implemented in BGP without necessarily tying it to BGPSEC. Carrying the proposed RLP encoding in a transitive community attribute in BGP is another way, but in order to prevent abuse, the community attribute would require cryptographic protection. Incorporating the RLP encoding in the BGPSEC Flags field is one way of implementing it securely using an already existing protection mechanism provided in BGPSEC path signatures. 6. Security Considerations The proposed Route Leak Protection (RLP) field requires cryptographic protection. Since it is proposed that the RLP field be included in the Flags field in the Secure_Path Segment in BPGSEC updates, the cryptographic security mechanisms in BGPSEC are expected to also apply to the RLP field. The reader is therefore directed to the security considerations provided in [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]. 7. IANA Considerations No updates to the registries are suggested by this document. 8. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Danny McPherson and Eric Osterweil for discussions related to this work. Also, thanks are due to Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Warren Kumari, Brian Dickson, Amogh Dhamdhere, Jakob Heitz, Geoff Huston, Randy Bush, Ruediger Volk, Andrei Robachevsky, Chris Morrow, and Sandy Murphy for comments, suggestions, and critique. The authors are also thankful to Padma Krishnaswamy, Oliver Borchert, and Okhee Kim for their comments and review. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 9.2. Informative References [Cowie2010] Cowie, J., "China's 18 Minute Mystery", Dyn Research/ Renesys Blog, November 2010, . [Cowie2013] Cowie, J., "The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection", Dyn Research/Renesys Blog, November 2013, . [Gao] Gao, L. and J. Rexford, "Stable Internet routing without global coordination", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, December 2001, . [Gill] Gill, P., Schapira, M., and S. Goldberg, "A Survey of Interdomain Routing Policies", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, January 2014, . [Giotsas] Giotsas, V. and S. Zhou, "Valley-free violation in Internet routing - Analysis based on BGP Community data", IEEE ICC 2012, June 2012, . [Hiran] Hiran, R., Carlsson, N., and P. Gill, "Characterizing Large-scale Routing Anomalies: A Case Study of the China Telecom Incident", PAM 2013, March 2013, . [Huston2012] Huston, G., "Leaking Routes", March 2012, . [Huston2014] Huston, G., "What's so special about 512?", September 2014, . Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition] Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., McPherson, D., and E. Osterweil, "Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks", draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem- definition-00 (work in progress), February 2015. [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] Lepinski, M., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", draft-ietf- sidr-bgpsec-protocol-11 (work in progress), January 2015. [Kapela-Pilosov] Pilosov, A. and T. Kapela, "Stealing the Internet: An Internet-Scale Man in the Middle Attack", DEFCON-16 Las Vegas, NV, USA, August 2008, . [Khare] Khare, V., Ju, Q., and B. Zhang, "Concurrent Prefix Hijacks: Occurrence and Impacts", IMC 2012, Boston, MA, November 2012, . [LRL] Khare, V., Ju, Q., and B. Zhang, "Large Route Leaks", Project web page, 2012, . [Labovitz] Labovitz, C., "Additional Discussion of the April China BGP Hijack Inciden", Arbor Networks IT Security Blog, November 2010, . [Luckie] Luckie, M., Huffaker, B., Dhamdhere, A., Giotsas, V., and kc. claffy, "AS Relationships, Customer Cones, and Validation", IMC 2013, October 2013, . [Madory] Madory, D., "Why Far-Flung Parts of the Internet Broke Today", Dyn Research/Renesys Blog, September 2014, . [Mauch] Mauch, J., "BGP Routing Leak Detection System", Project web page, 2014, . Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Route Leak Detection and Mitigation March 2015 [Mauch-nanog] Mauch, J., "Detecting Routing Leaks by Counting", NANOG-41 Albuquerque, NM, USA, October 2007, . [Paseka] Paseka, T., "Why Google Went Offline Today and a Bit about How the Internet Works", CloudFare Blog, November 2012, . [RFC6811] Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, January 2013. [Toonk] Toonk, A., "What Caused Today's Internet Hiccup", August 2014, . [Wijchers] Wijchers, B. and B. Overeinder, "Quantitative Analysis of BGP Route Leaks", RIPE-69, November 2014, . [Zmijewski] Zmijewski, E., "Indonesia Hijacks the World", Dyn Research/Renesys Blog, April 2014, . Authors' Addresses Kotikalapudi Sriram US NIST Email: ksriram@nist.gov Doug Montgomery US NIST Email: dougm@nist.gov Sriram & Montgomery Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 14]