James, ASR9K has mpls urpf support. We are planning to support the same on ASR920 and ASR903 RSP2. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4-3/mpls/configuration/guide/b_mpls_cg43xasr9k/b_mpls_cg43asr9k_chapter_011.html#task_19C44FE6D33F4F8BADAF64614C1DB339
MPLS uRPF and proper control plane authentication should be able to address your concerns. I think Autonomic Networking will also help since it builds secure channel infrastructure. Best Regards, [http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg] Waris Sagheer Technical Marketing Manager Service Provider Access Group (SPAG) [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Phone: +1 408 853 6682 Mobile: +1 408 835 1389 CCIE - 19901 <http://www.cisco.com/> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. For corporate legal information go to:http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html From: James Bensley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 1:56 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [c-nsp] MPLS to Customer (Option B) / Multiple VRFs on CPEs Hi All, I know this has been discussed before (more on the NANOG list) but what are people doing regarding MPLS down to the CPE? Even though we own our CPEs and customers typically don't have access to them (or perhaps restricted show commands) it is a security concern that customers can send labelled packets back into the network if we enable MPLS on the CE facing interface on our PE. There is also the concern of route injection but I believe that risk can be removed by enabling MD5 on BGP and LDP sessions between CE and PE. (i) My first idea was uRPF, on the 12000 routers it seems that uRFP can inspect MPLS; >From : >http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/srpf_gsr.html "All Layer 2 encapsulation and transport types are supported, including ATM AAL5, ATM cell relay, Ethernet (VLAN and port modes), Frame Relay, HDLC, and PPP over MPLS; for more information, refer to Any Transport over MPLS." ... "Although the Unicast RPF in Strict Mode feature filters only IPv4 packets in IP or MPLS traffic, you can configure IOS software features that manage other traffic on the same interface, such as IP forwarding, MPLS features, Frame Relay switching, ATM switching, and Any Transport over ATM (AToM) connections. However, Unicast RPF filtering is only applied to incoming traffic on IP routing interfaces and not on packets processed by Frame Relay or ATM switching or transmitted over AToM pseudowire commendations." We aren't using 12000 though; At the access layer we're using ME3600/ME3800/6500/7600/ASR1K and we're looking at 6880-X to remove the smaller access layer 6504/6505/7604/7607 type chassis. I can't find any indication that any of those can support MPLS in uRPF so I think that idea is useless unless someone else can show me some contradictory information? (ii) My second idea was label value range restrictions Since the average CPE may have 3-5 VRFs on it with say 10 routes in each we could perhaps fiddle with the label allocation rules by setting 1000-1999 to be the usable range at PoP A, and 2000-2999 at PoP B and so on. We can restrict the routes that enter the LFIB at the PEs and which ones get labels allocated to them. Techniques like this reduce the surface area of potential attack and make it difficult to send in packets with a valid label (or label stack) but they seem more like security through obscurity to me. (iii) Additional options... I'm all ears! Is anyone running MPLS to the customer rather than multiple option A perings to each CPE? When we do large roll outs of 1000 CPEs with each CPE having a minimum of 3 and maximum of ~10 VRFs we end up having thousands of peerings. MPLS to the customer really would be a lot simpler for config generation, automation, monitoring etc (also when we want PWE3/AToM) between two CPEs at different sites). Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
