[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection
- Subject: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection
- From: arturo.servin at gmail.com (Arturo Servin)
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:08:01 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CAArzuosLuG=tQdHVNN_UAUH6RV898+HMVVT9FLWvkez_jEcBwg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAJ0+aXah=Ad4Jd8-fCGdottWiBKuO0cprYA-JKrTNeKbNpG79Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAArzuosLuG=tQdHVNN_UAUH6RV898+HMVVT9FLWvkez_jEcBwg@mail.gmail.com>
Or better.
Sign your prefixes and create ROAs to monitor any suspicious activity.
There is an app for that:
http://bgpmon.net
Besides the normal service you can use also RPKI data to trigger alarms of possible hijacks
http://www.labs.lacnic.net/rpkitools/looking_glass/
You can query periodically with a simple curl/wget to see if your prefix is valid or invalid (possibly hijacked), e.g. http://www.labs.lacnic.net/rpkitools/looking_glass/rest/all/cidr/200.7.84.0/23
Polluting the routing table to protect against hijacks should be the last option and against an attack that is happening, and not for "just in case".
Regards,
/as
On 30 Aug 2012, at 08:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> You might find your /24 routes filtered out at a lot of places that do
> have sensible route filtering
>
> But then yes, it'd protect you against the idiots who dont know bgp
> from a hole in the ground anyway and let whatever hijacking happen
>
> But I'd suggest do whatever such announcement if and only if you see a
> hijack, as a mitigation measure.
>