draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
  
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' 

href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629.xslt" ?>

<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>

<rfc category="info"
     number="XXXX"
     ipr="trust200902"
     consensus="yes"
     submissionType="IETF"
     xml:lang="en">

  <front>

    <title abbrev="IXP BGP Route Server Operations">
      Internet Exchange BGP Route Server Operations
    </title>

    <author initials="N" surname="Hilliard" fullname="Nick Hilliard">
      <organization>INEX</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>4027 Kingswood Road</street>
          <city>Dublin</city> 
          <code>24</code>
          <country>Ireland</country>
        </postal>
        <email>nick@inex.ie</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author initials="E" surname="Jasinska" fullname="Elisa Jasinska">
      <organization>BigWave IT</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>ul. Skawinska 27/7</street>
          <city>Krakow</city> 
          <region>MP</region>
          <code>31-066</code>
          <country>Poland</country>
        </postal>
        <email>elisa@bigwaveit.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author initials="R" surname="Raszuk" fullname="Robert Raszuk">
      <organization>Mirantis Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>615 National Ave. #100</street>
          <city>Mt View</city>
          <region>CA</region>
          <code>94043</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>robert@raszuk.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author initials="N" surname="Bakker" fullname="Niels Bakker">
      <organization>Akamai Technologies B.V.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Kingsfordweg 151</street>
          <city>Amsterdam</city> 
          <code>1043 GR</code>
          <country>Netherlands</country>
        </postal>
        <email>nbakker@akamai.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="July" year="2016" />
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>GROW Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>GROW</keyword>

<!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in 
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->


    <abstract>
      <t>
        The popularity of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) brings new
        challenges to interconnecting networks. While bilateral External BGP (EBGP) sessions
        between exchange participants were historically the most common means
        of exchanging reachability information over an IXP, the overhead
        associated with this interconnection method causes serious operational
        and administrative scaling problems for IXP participants.
      </t>
      <t>
        Multilateral interconnection using Internet route servers can
        dramatically reduce the administrative and operational overhead
        associated with connecting to IXPs; in some cases, route servers
        are used by IXP participants as their preferred means of exchanging
        routing information.
      </t> 
      <t>
        This document describes operational considerations for multilateral
        interconnections at IXPs.
      </t>
    </abstract>

  </front>

  <middle>

     <section title="Introduction">
      <t>
        Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection
        facilities for their participants, using data link-layer protocols
        such as Ethernet.  The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) <xref
        target="RFC4271" /> is normally used to facilitate exchange of
        network reachability information over these media.
      </t>
      <t>
        As bilateral interconnection between IXP participants requires
        operational and administrative overhead, BGP route servers <xref
        target="RFCYYYY" /> are often deployed by IXP
        operators to provide a simple and convenient means of interconnecting
        IXP participants with each other. A route server redistributes
        BGP routes received from its BGP clients to other clients according to a
        prespecified policy, and it can be viewed as similar to an EBGP
        equivalent of an Internal BGP (IBGP) <xref target="RFC4456" /> route reflector.
      </t>
      <t>
        Route servers at IXPs require careful management, and it is important
        for route server operators to thoroughly understand both how they work
        and what their limitations are. In this document, we discuss several
        issues of operational relevance to route server operators and provide
        recommendations to help route server operators provision a reliable
        interconnection service.
      </t>

      <section title="Notational Conventions">
        <t>
          The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
          "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
          "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
          <xref target="RFC2119" />.
        </t>
        <t>
          The phrase "BGP route" in this document should be interpreted as
          the term "Route" described in <xref target="RFC4271" />.
        </t>
      </section>

    </section>

    <section title="Bilateral BGP Sessions">
      <t>
        Bilateral interconnection is a method of interconnecting routers using
        individual BGP sessions between each pair of participant routers on an IXP, in
        order to exchange reachability information. If an IXP participant
        wishes to implement an open interconnection policy -- i.e., a policy of
        interconnecting with as many other IXP participants as possible -- it
        is necessary for the participant to liaise with each of their intended
        interconnection partners. Interconnection can then be implemented
        bilaterally by configuring a BGP session on both participants' routers
        to exchange network reachability information. If each exchange
        participant interconnects with each other participant, a full mesh of
        BGP sessions is needed, as shown in <xref target="ixp_interconnection"
        />.
      </t>
      <figure title="Full-Mesh Interconnection at an IXP" anchor="ixp_interconnection">
        <preamble></preamble>
        <artwork align="center">
     ___      ___
    /   \    /   \
 ..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
:   \___/____\___/   :
:     | \    / |     :
:     |  \  /  |     :
: IXP |   \/   |     :
:     |   /\   |     :
:     |  /  \  |     :
:    _|_/____\_|_    :
:   /   \    /   \   :
 ..| AS3 |..| AS4 |..
    \___/    \___/
        </artwork>
        <postamble></postamble>
      </figure>
      <t>
        <xref target="ixp_interconnection" /> depicts an IXP platform with
        four connected routers, administered by four separate exchange
        participants, each of them with a locally unique Autonomous System (AS)
        number: AS1, AS2, AS3, and AS4.  The lines between the routers depict
        BGP sessions; the dotted edge represents the IXP border.  Each of
        these four participants wishes to exchange traffic with all other
        participants; this is accomplished by configuring a full mesh of BGP
        sessions on each router connected to the exchange, resulting in 6
        BGP sessions across the IXP fabric.
      </t>
      <t>
        The number of BGP sessions at an exchange has an upper bound of
        n*(n-1)/2, where n is the number of routers at the exchange. As many
        exchanges have large numbers of participating networks, the amount of
        administrative and operation overhead required to implement an open
        interconnection scales quadratically.  New participants
        to an IXP require significant initial resourcing in order to gain
        value from their IXP connection, while existing exchange participants
        need to commit ongoing resources in order to benefit from
        interconnecting with these new participants.
      </t>
    </section>


    <section title="Multilateral Interconnection">
      <t>
        Multilateral interconnection is implemented using a route server
        configured to distribute BGP routes among client routers.  The route
        server preserves the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute from all received BGP
        routes and passes them with unchanged NEXT_HOP to its route server
        clients according to its configured routing policy, as described in
        <xref target="RFCYYYY" />.  Using this
        method of exchanging BGP routes, an IXP participant router can
        receive an aggregated list of BGP routes from all other route server
        clients using a single BGP session to the route server instead of
        depending on BGP sessions with each other router at the exchange. 
        This reduces the overall number of BGP sessions at an Internet
        exchange from n*(n-1)/2 to n, where n is the number of routers at
        the exchange.
      </t>
      <t>
        Although a route server uses BGP to exchange reachability information 
        with each of its clients, it does not forward traffic itself and is 
        therefore not a router.
      </t>
      <t>
        In practical terms, this allows dense interconnection between IXP
        participants with low administrative overhead and significantly
        simpler and smaller router configurations. In particular, new IXP
        participants benefit from immediate and extensive interconnection,
        while existing route server participants receive reachability
        information from these new participants without necessarily having to
        modify their configurations.
       </t>

      <figure title="IXP-Based Interconnection with Route Server" anchor="rs_interconnection">
        <preamble></preamble>
        <artwork align="center">
     ___      ___
    /   \    /   \
 ..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
:   \___/    \___/   :
:      \      /      :
:       \    /       :
:        \__/        :
: IXP   /    \       :
:      |  RS  |      :
:       \____/       :
:        /  \        :
:       /    \       :
:    __/      \__    :
:   /   \    /   \   :
 ..| AS3 |..| AS4 |..
    \___/    \___/
        </artwork>
        <postamble></postamble>
      </figure>
      <t>
        As illustrated in <xref target="rs_interconnection" />, each router on
        the IXP fabric requires only a single BGP session to the route server,
        from which it can receive reachability information for all other
        routers on the IXP that also connect to the route server.
      </t>
      <t>
        Multilateral and bilateral interconnections between different
        autonomous systems are not exclusive to each other, and it is not
        unusual to have both sorts of sessions configured in parallel at an
        IXP.  This configuration will lead to additional paths being
        available to the BGP Decision Process, which will calculate a best
        path as normal.
      </t>
    </section>


    <section title="Operational Considerations for Route Server Installations" anchor="ops_considerations">

      <section title="Path Hiding" anchor="path_hiding">
        <t>
          "Path hiding" is a term used in <xref
          target="RFCYYYY" /> to describe the process
          whereby a route server may mask individual paths by applying
          conflicting routing policies to its Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB).  
          When this happens,
          route server clients receive incomplete information from the route
          server about network reachability.
        </t>
        <t>
          There are several approaches that may be used to mitigate against
          the effect of path hiding; these are described in <xref
          target="RFCYYYY" />. However, the only
          method that does not require explicit support from the route server
          client is for the route server itself to maintain an individual
          Loc-RIB for each client that is the subject of conflicting routing
          policies.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section title="Route Server Scaling" anchor="ops_scaling"> 
        <t>
          While deployment of multiple Loc-RIBs on the route server presents a
          simple way to avoid the path hiding problem noted in <xref
          target="path_hiding" />, this approach requires significantly more
          computing resources on the route server than where a single Loc-RIB
          is deployed for all clients. As the BGP
          Decision Process <xref target="RFC4271" /> must be applied to all Loc-RIBs deployed on the
          route server, both CPU and memory requirements on the host computer
          scale approximately according to O(P * N), where P is the total
          number of unique paths received by the route server, and N is the
          number of route server clients that require a unique Loc-RIB. As
          this is a super-linear scaling relationship, large route servers may
          derive benefit from deploying per-client Loc-RIBs only where they
          are required.
        </t>
        <t>
          Regardless of whether any Loc-RIB optimization technique is
          implemented, the route server's theoretical upper-bound network
          bandwidth requirements will scale according to O(P_tot * N), where
          P_tot is the total number of unique paths received by the route
          server, and N is the total number of route server clients.  In the
          case where P_avg (the arithmetic mean number of unique paths
          received per route server client) remains roughly constant even as
          the number of connected clients increases, the total number of
          prefixes will equal the average number of prefixes multiplied by
          the number of clients.  Symbolically, this can be written as P_tot
          = P_avg * N.  If we assume that in the worst case, each prefix is
          associated with a different set of BGP path attributes, so must be
          transmitted individually, the network bandwidth scaling function
          can be rewritten as O((P_avg * N) * N) or O(N^2).  This quadratic
          upper bound on the network traffic requirements indicates that the
          route server model may not scale well for larger numbers of
          clients.
        </t>
        <t>
          In practice, most prefixes will be associated with a limited
          number of BGP path attribute sets, allowing more efficient
          transmission of BGP routes from the route server than the
          theoretical analysis suggests.  In the analysis above, P_tot will
          increase monotonically according to the number of clients, but
          it will have an upper limit of the size of the full default-free
          routing table of the network in which the IXP is located. 
          Observations from production route servers have shown that most
          route server clients generally avoid using custom routing policies,
          and consequently the route server may not need to deploy
          per-client Loc-RIBs.  These practical bounds reduce the
          theoretical worst-case scaling scenario to the point where
          route server deployments are manageable even on larger IXPs.
        </t>
        <section title="Tackling Scaling Issues">
          <t>
            The problem of scaling route servers still presents serious
            practical challenges and requires careful attention.  Scaling
            analysis indicates problems in three key areas: route processor
            CPU overhead associated with BGP Decision Process calculations,
            the memory requirements for handling many different BGP path
            entries, and the network traffic bandwidth required to
            distribute these BGP routes from the route server to each route
            server client.
          </t>

          <section title="View Merging and Decomposition"> 
            <t>
              View merging and decomposition, outlined in <xref
              target="RS-ARCH" />, describes a method of optimizing memory
              and CPU requirements where multiple route server clients are
              subject to exactly the same routing policies.  In this
              situation, multiple Loc-RIB views can be merged into a single
              view.
            </t>
            <t>
              There are several variations of this approach.  If the route
              server operator has prior knowledge of interconnection
              relationships between route server clients, then the operator
              may configure separate Loc&nbhy;RIBs only for route server clients
              with unique routing policies.  As this approach
              requires prior knowledge of interconnection relationships, the
              route server operator must depend on each client sharing their
              interconnection policies either in an internal provisioning
              database controlled by the operator or in an external
              data store such as an Internet Routing Registry Database.
            </t>
            <t>
              Conversely, the route server implementation itself may implement
              internal view decomposition by creating virtual Loc-RIBs based
              on a single in-memory master Loc-RIB, with delta differences for
              each prefix subject to different routing policies. This allows a
              more fine-grained and flexible approach to the problem of Loc-RIB
              scaling, at the expense of requiring a more complex in-memory
              Loc-RIB structure.
      	    </t>
            <t>
              Whatever method of view merging and decomposition is chosen on
              a route server, pathological edge cases can be created whereby
              they will scale no better than fully non-optimized per-client
              Loc-RIBs.  However, as most route server clients connect to a
              route server for the purposes of reducing overhead, rather
              than implementing complex per-client routing policies, edge
              cases tend not to arise in practice. 
            </t>
          </section>

          <section title="Destination Splitting">
            <t>
              Destination splitting, also described in <xref
              target="RS-ARCH" />, describes a method for route server
              clients to connect to multiple route servers and to send
              non-overlapping sets of prefixes to each route server. As
              each route server computes the best path for its own set of
              prefixes, the quadratic scaling requirement operates on
              multiple smaller sets of prefixes. This reduces the overall
              computational and memory requirements for managing multiple
              Loc-RIBs and performing the best-path calculation on each.
            </t>
            <t>
              In practice, the route server operator would need all route
              server clients to send a full set of BGP routes to each route
              server.  The route server operator could then selectively
              filter these prefixes for each route server by using either
              BGP Outbound Route Filtering <xref target="RFC5291" /> or
              inbound prefix filters configured on client BGP sessions.
            </t>
          </section>

          <section title="NEXT_HOP Resolution">
            <t>
              As route servers are usually deployed at IXPs where all
              connected routers are on the same Layer 2 broadcast domain,
              recursive resolution of the NEXT_HOP attribute is generally
              not required and can be replaced by a simple check to ensure
              that the NEXT_HOP value for each received BGP route is a
              network address on the IXP LAN's IP address range.
            </t>
          </section>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Prefix Leakage Mitigation" anchor="ops_leakage_mitigation"> 
        <t>
          Prefix leakage occurs when a BGP client unintentionally distributes
          BGP routes to one or more neighboring BGP routers. Prefix
          leakage of this form to a route server can cause serious
          connectivity problems at an IXP if each route server client is
          configured to accept all BGP routes from the route
          server. It is therefore RECOMMENDED when deploying route servers
          that, due to the potential for collateral damage caused by BGP route
          leakage, route server operators deploy prefix leakage mitigation
          measures in order to prevent unintentional prefix announcements or
          else limit the scale of any such leak. Although not foolproof,
          per-client inbound prefix limits can restrict the damage caused by
          prefix leakage in many cases. Per-client inbound prefix filtering on
          the route server is a more deterministic and usually more reliable
          means of preventing prefix leakage but requires more administrative
          resources to maintain properly.
        </t>
        <t>
          If a route server operator implements per-client inbound prefix
          filtering, then it is RECOMMENDED that the operator also builds in
          mechanisms to automatically compare the Adj-RIB-In received from
          each client with the inbound prefix lists configured for those
          clients.  Naturally, it is the responsibility of the route server
          client to ensure that their stated prefix list is compatible with
          what they announce to an IXP route server.  However, many network
          operators do not carefully manage their published routing policies,
          and it is not uncommon to see significant variation between the
          two sets of prefixes.  Route server operator visibility into this
          discrepancy can provide significant advantages to both operator
          and client.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section title="Route Server Redundancy" anchor="ops_use_two_of_em"> 
        <t>
          As the purpose of an IXP route server implementation is to provide
          a reliable reachability brokerage service, it is RECOMMENDED that
          exchange operators who implement route server systems provision
          multiple route servers on each shared Layer 2 domain.  There is no
          requirement to use the same BGP implementation or operating system
          for each route server on the IXP fabric; however, it is
          RECOMMENDED that where an operator provisions more than a single
          server on the same shared Layer 2 domain, each route server
          implementation be configured equivalently and in such a manner
          that the path reachability information from each system is
          identical.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section title="AS_PATH Consistency Check"> 
        <t>
          <xref target="RFC4271" /> requires that every BGP speaker that
          advertises a BGP route to another external BGP speaker prepends its
          own AS number as the last element of the AS_PATH sequence. 
          Therefore, the leftmost AS in an AS_PATH attribute should be equal
          to the AS number of the BGP speaker that sent the
          BGP route.
        </t>
        <t>
          As <xref target="RFCYYYY" /> suggests
          that route servers should not modify the AS_PATH attribute, a
          consistency check on the AS_PATH of a BGP route received by a route
          server client would normally fail.  It is therefore RECOMMENDED
          that route server clients disable the AS_PATH consistency check
          towards the route server.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section title="Export Routing Policies"> 
        <t>
          Policy filtering is commonly implemented on route servers to
          provide prefix distribution control mechanisms for route server
          clients.  A route server "export" policy is a policy that affects
          prefixes sent from the route server to a route server client. 
          Several different strategies are commonly used for implementing
          route server export policies.
        </t>

        <section title="BGP Communities">
          <t>
            Prefixes sent to the route server are tagged with specific
            standard <xref target="RFC1997" /> or extended <xref
            target="RFC4360" /> BGP community attributes, based on
            predefined values agreed between the operator and all clients. 
            Based on these community tags, BGP routes may be propagated to
            all other clients, a subset of clients, or none.  This mechanism
            allows route server clients to instruct the route server to
            implement per-client export routing policies.
          </t>
          <t>
            As both standard and extended BGP community values are currently
            restricted to 6 octets or fewer, it is not possible for both the
            global and local administrator fields in the BGP community to
            fit a 4-octet AS number.  Bearing this in mind,
            the route server operator SHOULD take care to ensure that the
            predefined BGP community values mechanism used on their route
            server is compatible with 4-octet AS numbers <xref target="RFC6793"/>.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Internet Routing Registries">
	  <t>
            Internet Routing Registry databases (IRRDBs) may be used by route
            server operators to construct per-client routing
            policies.  "Routing Policy Specification
            Language (RPSL)" <xref target="RFC2622" /> provides a comprehensive grammar for describing
            interconnection relationships, and several toolsets exist that
            can be used to translate RPSL policy description into route server
            configurations.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Client-Accessible Databases">
      	  <t>
            Should the route server operator not wish to use either BGP
            community tags or the public IRRDBs for implementing client
            export policies, they may implement their own routing policy
            database system for managing their clients' requirements.  A
            database of this form SHOULD allow a route server client
            operator to update their routing policy and provide a mechanism
            for allowing the client to specify whether they wish to exchange
            all their prefixes with any other route server client. 
            Optionally, the implementation may allow a client to specify
            unique routing policies for individual prefixes over which they
            have routing policy control. 
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Layer 2 Reachability Problems"> 
        <t>
          Layer 2 reachability problems on an IXP can cause serious
          operational problems for IXP participants that depend on route
          servers for interconnection. Ethernet switch forwarding bugs have
          occasionally been observed to cause non-transitive reachability.
          For example, given a route server and two IXP participants, A and B,
          if the two participants can reach the route server but cannot reach
          each other, then traffic between the participants may be dropped
          until such time as the Layer 2 forwarding problem is resolved. This
          situation does not tend to occur in bilateral interconnection
          arrangements, as the routing control path between the two hosts is
          usually (but not always, due to IXP inter-switch connectivity load-balancing
          algorithms) the same as the data path between them.
        </t>
        <t>
          Problems of this form can be partially mitigated by using  Bidirectional 
          Forwarding Detection (BFD) <xref target="RFC5881" />.  However,
          as this is a bilateral protocol configured between routers, and as
          there is currently no protocol to automatically configure BFD
          sessions between route server clients, BFD does not currently
          provide an optimal means of handling the problem.  Even if
          automatic BFD session configuration were possible, practical
          problems would remain.  If two IXP route server clients were
          configured to run BFD between each other and the protocol detected
          a non-transitive loss of reachability between them, each of those
          routers would internally mark the other's prefixes as unreachable
          via the BGP path announced by the route server.  As the route
          server only propagates a single best path to each client, this
          could cause either sub-optimal routing or complete connectivity
          loss if there were no alternative paths learned from other BGP
          sessions.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section title="BGP NEXT_HOP Hijacking" anchor="nh_hijack"> 
        <t>
	  Number 2 in Section 5.1.3 of <xref target="RFC4271" /> allows EBGP speakers
	  to change the NEXT_HOP address of a received BGP route to be a different
	  Internet address on the same subnet.  This is the mechanism that
	  allows route servers to operate on a shared Layer 2 IXP network. 
	  However, the mechanism can be abused by route server clients to
	  redirect traffic for their prefixes to other IXP participant
	  routers.
        </t>
      <figure title="BGP NEXT_HOP Hijacking Using a Route Server" anchor="pic_nh_hijack">
        <preamble></preamble>
        <artwork align="center">
         ____
        /    \
       | AS99 |
        \____/
         /  \
        /    \ 
     __/      \__
    /   \    /   \
 ..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
:   \___/    \___/   :
:      \      /      :
:       \    /       :
:        \__/        :
: IXP   /    \       :
:      |  RS  |      :
:       \____/       :
:                    :
 ....................
        </artwork>
        <postamble></postamble>
      </figure>

        <t>
	  For example in <xref target="pic_nh_hijack" />, if AS1 and AS2
	  both announce BGP routes for AS99 to the route server, AS1 could set
	  the NEXT_HOP address for AS99's routes to be the address of
	  AS2's router, thereby diverting traffic for AS99 via AS2.  This
	  may override the routing policies of AS99 and AS2.
        </t>
        <t>
	  Worse still, if the route server operator does not use inbound
	  prefix filtering, AS1 could announce any arbitrary prefix to the
	  route server with a NEXT_HOP address of any other IXP
	  participant.  This could be used as a denial-of-service mechanism
	  against either the users of the address space being announced by
	  illicitly diverting their traffic or the other IXP participant by
	  overloading their network with traffic that would not normally be
	  sent there.
        </t>
        <t>
	  This problem is not specific to route servers, and it can also be
	  implemented using bilateral BGP sessions.  However, the
	  potential damage is amplified by route servers because a single
	  BGP session can be used to affect many networks simultaneously.
        </t>
        <t>
	  Because route server clients cannot easily implement next-hop
	  policy checks against route server BGP sessions, route server
	  operators SHOULD check that the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute for BGP
	  routes received from a route server client matches the interface
	  address of the client.  If the route server receives a BGP route
	  where these addresses are different and where the announcing route
	  server client is in a different AS to the route
	  server client that uses the next-hop address, the BGP route
	  SHOULD be dropped.  Permitting next-hop rewriting for the same
	  AS allows an organization with multiple connections
	  into an IXP configured with different IP addresses to direct
	  traffic off the IXP infrastructure through any of their
	  connections for traffic engineering or other purposes.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section title="BGP Operations and Security">
       <t>
          BGP route servers SHOULD be configured and operated in compliance
          with <xref target="RFC7454" /> with the exception of Section 11,
          "BGP Community Scrubbing", which may not necessarily apply on a
          route server, depending on the route server operator policy.
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>
        On route server installations that do not employ path hiding
        mitigation techniques, the path hiding problem outlined in <xref
        target="path_hiding" /> could be used by an IXP participant to
        prevent the route server from sending any BGP routes for a
        particular prefix to other route server clients, even if there were
        a valid path to that destination via another route server client.
      </t>
      <t>
        If the route server operator does not implement prefix leakage
        mitigation as described in <xref target="ops_leakage_mitigation" />,
        it is trivial for route server clients to implement denial-of-service
        attacks against arbitrary Internet networks by leaking BGP
        routes to a route server.
      </t>
      <t>
        Route server installations SHOULD be secured against BGP NEXT_HOP
        hijacking, as described in <xref target="nh_hijack" />.
      </t>
    </section>


  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">

<!--draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-12; Active, part of C227-->
<reference anchor='RFCYYYY' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcYYYY">
<front>
<title>Internet Exchange BGP Route Server</title>
<author initials='E' surname='Jasinska' fullname='Elisa Jasinska'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='N' surname='Hilliard' fullname='Nick Hilliard'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='R' surname='Raszuk' fullname='Robert Raszuk'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='N' surname='Bakker' fullname='Niels Bakker'>
    <organization />
</author>
<date month='July' year='2016' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='YYYY' />
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFCYYYY' />
</reference>


      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?> 
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1997"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2622"?> 
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4271"?> 
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4360"?> 
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4456"?> 
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5291"?> 
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5881"?> 
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6793"?> 
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7454"?> 
      
        <reference anchor="RS-ARCH"
                 target="http://www.cs.usc.edu/assets/003/83191.pdf">
        <front>
          <title>A Route Server Architecture for Inter-Domain Routing</title>
          <author initials="R" surname="Govindan" fullname="Ramesh Govindan">
            <organization>The University of Southern California</organization>
          </author>
          <author initials="C" surname="Alaettinoglu" fullname="Cengiz Alaettinoglu">
            <organization>The University of Southern California</organization>
          </author>
          <author initials="K" surname="Varadhan" fullname="Kannan Varadhan">
            <organization>The University of Southern California</organization>
          </author>
          <author initials="D" surname="Estrin" fullname="Deborah Estrin">
            <organization>The University of Southern California</organization>
          </author>
          <date year="1995" />
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <section title="Acknowledgments" numbered="no">
      <t>
        The authors would like to thank Chris Hall, Ryan Bickhart, Steven
        Bakker, and Eduardo Ascen&ccedil;o Reis for their valuable input.
      </t>
    </section>
  </back>

</rfc>