skip to main content
research-article

Hyper-specific prefixes: gotta enjoy the little things in interdomain routing

Published:20 June 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Autonomous Systems (ASes) exchange reachability information between each other using BGP---the de-facto standard inter-AS routing protocol. While IPv4 (IPv6) routes more specific than /24 (/48) are commonly filtered (and hence not propagated), route collectors still observe many of them.

In this work, we take a closer look at those "hyper-specific" prefixes (HSPs). In particular, we analyze their prevalence, use cases, and whether operators use them intentionally or accidentally. While their total number increases over time, most HSPs can only be seen by route collector peers. Nonetheless, some HSPs can be seen constantly throughout an entire year and propagate widely. We find that most HSPs represent (internal) routes to peering infrastructure or are related to address block relocations or blackholing. While hundreds of operators intentionally add HSPs to well-known routing databases, we observe that many HSPs are possibly accidentally leaked routes.

References

  1. Emile Aben and Colin Petrie. 2014. Propagation of Longer-than-/24 IPv4 Prefixes. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Emile Aben and Colin Petrie. 2015. Has the Routability of Longer-than-/24 Prefixes Changed? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/has-the-routability-of-longer-than-24-prefixes-changedGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tian Bu, Lixin Gao, and Don Towsley. 2002. On characterizing BGP routing table growth. In Global Telecommunications Conference, 2002. GLOBECOM'02. IEEE, Vol. 3. IEEE, 2185--2189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Rocky KC Chang and Michael Lo. 2005. Inbound traffic engineering for multihomed ASs using AS path prepending. IEEE network 19, 2 (2005), 18--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Taejoong Chung, Emile Aben, Tim Bruijnzeels, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran, David Choffnes, Dave Levin, Bruce M Maggs, Alan Mislove, Roland van Rijswijk-Deij, John Rula, et al. 2019. RPKI is coming of age: a longitudinal study of RPKI deployment and invalid route origins. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference. 406--419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cisco. 2021. Removing Private AS Numbers from the AS Path in BGP. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/xe-16/irg-xe-16-book/removing-private-as-numbers-from-the-as-path-in-bgp.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Luca Cittadini, Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Steve Uhlig, Randy Bush, Pierre Francois, and Olaf Maennel. 2010. Evolution of Internet address space deaggregation: Myths and reality. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 28, 8 (2010), 1238--1249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. DE-CIX. 2021. BGP announcement filtering. https://www.de-cix.net/en/locations/frankfurt/route-server-guideGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Christoph Dietzel, Anja Feldmann, and Thomas King. 2016. Black-holing at ixps: On the effectiveness of ddos mitigation in the wild. In International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement. Springer, 319--332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Christoph Dietzel, Matthias Wichtlhuber, Georgios Smaragdakis, and Anja Feldmann. 2018. Stellar: network attack mitigation using advanced blackholing. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies. 152--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gert Döring. 2013. IPv6 BGP filter recommendations. https://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J. Durand, I. Pepelnjak, and G. Doering. 2015. BGP Operations and Security. RFC 7454 (Best Current Practice). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Lixin Gao. 2001. On Inferring Autonomous System Relationships in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on networking 9, 6 (2001), 733--745.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Petros Gigis, Matt Calder, Lefteris Manassakis, George Nomikos, Vasileios Kotronis, Xenofontas Dimitropoulos, Ethan Katz-Bassett, and Georgios Smaragdakis. 2021. Seven Years in the Life of Hypergiants' Off-Nets. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference. 516--533.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Vasileios Giotsas, Georgios Smaragdakis, Christoph Dietzel, Philipp Richter, Anja Feldmann, and Arthur Berger. 2017. Inferring BGP blackholing activity in the internet. In Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Caitlin Gray, Clemens Mosig, Randy Bush, Cristel Pelsser, Matthew Roughan, Thomas C Schmidt, and Matthias Wahlisch. 2020. BGP Beacons, Network Tomography, and Bayesian Computation to Locate Route Flap Damping. In Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 492--505.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Geoff Huston. 2017. BGP more specifics: routing vandalism or useful? https://blog.apnic.net/2017/06/26/bgp-specifics-routing-vandalism-useful/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. G. Huston and G. Michaelson. 2012. Validation of Route Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). RFC 6483 (Informational). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. irr.net. 2021. List of Routing Registries. http://www.irr.net/docs/list.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Isolario 2021. Isolario Project. Available at https://isolario.it/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin Jin, Shuai Hao, Haining Wang, and Chase Cotton. 2018. Your Remnant Tells Secret: Residual Resolution in DDoS Protection Services. In 2018 48th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN). IEEE, 362--373.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Juniper. 2021. Understanding BGP Confederations. https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/bgp/topics/topic-map/bgp-confederations-for-scaling.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. T. King, C. Dietzel, J. Snijders, G. Doering, and G. Hankins. 2016. BLACKHOLE Community. RFC 7999. RFC Editor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomas Krenc, Robert Beverly, and Georgios Smaragdakis. 2021. AS-level BGP community usage classification. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 577--592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Thomas Krenc and Anja Feldmann. 2016. BGP prefix delegations: a deep dive. In Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference. 469--475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Andra Lutu, Marcelo Bagnulo, Cristel Pelsser, Kenjiro Cho, and Rade Stanojevic. 2015. An analysis of the economic impact of strategic deaggregation. Computer Networks 81 (2015), 147--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Andra Lutu, Marcelo Bagnulo, and Rade Stanojevic. 2012. An economic side-effect for prefix deaggregation. In 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM Workshops. IEEE, 190--195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Andra Lutu, Cristel Pelsser, Marcelo Bagnulo, and Kenjiro Cho. 2013. The aftermath of prefix deaggregation. In Proceedings of the 2013 25th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC). IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. MANRS. 2021. Prefix filter configuration tools. https://www.manrs.org/isps/guide/filtering/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Alexander Marder, Matthew Luckie, Amogh Dhamdhere, Bradley Huffaker, KC Claffy, and Jonathan M Smith. 2018. Pushing the boundaries with bdrmapit: Mapping router ownership at Internet scale. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018. 56--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Xiaoqiao Meng, Zhiguo Xu, Beichuan Zhang, Geoff Huston, Songwu Lu, and Lixia Zhang. 2005. IPv4 address allocation and the BGP routing table evolution. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 35, 1 (2005), 71--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Marcin Nawrocki, Jeremias Blendin, Christoph Dietzel, Thomas C Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch. 2019. Down the black hole: dismantling operational practices of BGP blackholing at IXPS. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference. 435--448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. NLNOG. 2021. Filtering Small Prefixes. https://bgpfilterguide.nlnog.net/guides/small_prefixes/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. NOCTION. 2021. BGP Prefix Filtering. https://www.noction.com/knowledge-base/bgp-prefix-filteringGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramakrishna Padmanabhan, John P Rula, Philipp Richter, Stephen D Strowes, and Alberto Dainotti. 2020. DynamIPs: Analyzing address assignment practices in IPv4 and IPv6. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies. 55--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Lars Prehn, Franziska Lichtblau, and Anja Feldmann. 2020. When wells run dry: the 2020 IPv4 address market. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies. 46--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Bruno Quoitin, Cristel Pelsser, Louis Swinnen, Olivier Bonaventure, and Steve Uhlig. 2003. Interdomain traffic engineering with BGP. IEEE Communications magazine 41, 5 (2003), 122--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Rapid7. 2021. Rapid7 Open Data. https://opendata.rapid7.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Y. Rekhter (Ed.), T. Li (Ed.), and S. Hares (Ed.). 2006. A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4). RFC 4271 (Draft Standard). Updated by RFCs 6286, 6608, 6793, 7606, 7607, 7705, 8212, 8654. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. A. Retana, R. White, V. Fuller, and D. McPherson. 2000. Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links. RFC 3021 (Proposed Standard). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. RIPE. 2021. RIPE Atlas Measurement Dumps - [2021/05/17-23]. https://data-store.ripe.net/datasets/atlas-daily-dumps/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. RIPE NCC. 2021. RIPE Atlas measurement platform. https://atlas.ripe.net/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. RIPE NCC. 2021. RIPE RPKI Snapshots. https://ftp.ripe.net/rpki/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. RIPE-RIS 2021. RIPE Routing Information Service. http://www.ripe.net/ris/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Matthew Roughan, Walter Willinger, Olaf Maennel, Debbie Perouli, and Randy Bush. 2011. 10 lessons from 10 years of measuring and modeling the internet's autonomous systems. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 29, 9 (2011), 1810--1821.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Routeviews 2021. Routeviews Project - University of Oregon. Available at http://www.routeviews.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Brandon Schlinker, Todd Arnold, Italo Cunha, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2019. PEERING: Virtualizing BGP at the Edge for Research. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies. Orlando, FL.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Georgos Siganos and Michalis Faloutsos. 2004. Analyzing BGP policies: Methodology and tool. In IEEE INFOCOM 2004, Vol. 3. IEEE, 1640--1651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. P. Smith and R. Evans. 2011. RIPE-532 - RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations on IPv6 Route Aggregation. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-532Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. P. Smith, R. Evans, and M. Hughes. 2006. RIPE-399 - RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations on Route Aggregation. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Stephen Strowes and Colin Petrie. 2017. BGP Even-More Specifics in 2017. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stephen_strowes/bgp-even-more-specifics-in-2017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. The Broadband Forum. 2018. TR-069: CPE WAN Management Protocol. https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-069_Amendment-6.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. CAIDA UCSD. 2021. The IPv4 Routed /24 Topology Dataset - [2021/05/17-23]. https://data.caida.org/datasets/topology/ark/ipv4/probe-data/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. CAIDA UCSD. 2021. The IPv6 Routed /48 Topology Dataset - [2021/05/17-23]. https://publicdata.caida.org/datasets/topology/ark/ipv6/probe-data/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Maya Ziv, Liz Izhikevich, Kimberly Ruth, Katherine Izhikevich, and Zakir Durumeric. 2021. ASdb: a system for classifying owners of autonomous systems. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 703--719.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Hyper-specific prefixes: gotta enjoy the little things in interdomain routing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
      ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 52, Issue 2
      April 2022
      69 pages
      ISSN:0146-4833
      DOI:10.1145/3544912
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2022 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 June 2022

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader