rationality and traffic attraction rationality and
play

Rationality and Traffic Attraction Rationality and Traffic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Rationality and Traffic Attraction Rationality and Traffic Attraction Incentives for Honest Path Announcement in BGP Princeton AT&T AT&T $ IBM Local Local ISP ISP ISP ISP Comcast Sharon Goldberg Shai Halevi Aaron D. Jaggard


  1. Rationality and Traffic Attraction Rationality and Traffic Attraction Incentives for Honest Path Announcement in BGP Princeton AT&T AT&T $ IBM Local Local ISP ISP ISP ISP Comcast Sharon Goldberg Shai Halevi Aaron D. Jaggard A D J d Vij Vijay Ramachandran R h d R b Rebecca N. Wright N W i h Princeton University Princeton University SIGCOMM 2008

  2. Incentives and Security We use game theory to understand the which secure protocols should be deployed in the Internet. We ask: Does traffic on the Internet actually follow the paths announced in BGP ? $ $ Approach: Assume that nodes are economic entities They are rational -- try to maximize utility. • AS Our Results: Mostly bad news . We find that cryptographically authenticating We find that cryptographically authenticating • • routing messages is not sufficient. Polic … unless we also make unrealistic • cy assumptions about routing policies. • Results are mostly descriptive, not prescriptive 2/24

  3. BGP: The Interdomain Routing Protocol (1) The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the routing protocol Th B d G t P t l (BGP) i th ti t l that sets up paths between Autonomous Systems (ASes). IBM AT&T, IBM Princeton AT&T AT&T IBM Local ISP ISP Local Ranking Local Ranking: Comcast Comcast, IBM AT&T, IBM IBM IBM Comcast, IBM Forwarding: Node use single outgoing link for all traffic to destination. Rankings: Static and local; usually based on economic relationships. 3/24

  4. BGP: The Interdomain Routing Protocol (2) The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the routing protocol Th B d G t P t l (BGP) i th ti t l that sets up paths between Autonomous Systems (ASes). AT&T, AT&T, IBM IBM Princeton AT&T AT&T IBM Local Princeton Ranking: ISP ISP Local AT&T IBM Local, AT&T, IBM Comcast AT&T, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM Forwarding: Node use single outgoing link for all traffic to destination. Rankings: Static and local; usually based on economic relationships. 4/24

  5. Today’s Security Goal: Matching the Data Plane Goal: BGP announcements match AS-paths packets take in data plane. Goal: Local, AT&T, IBM Princeton AT&T AT&T $ IBM Local Local Princeton Ranking: ISP ISP ISP ISP Local AT&T IBM Local, AT&T, IBM Comcast AT&T, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM This way, ASes can use BGP messages: 1. To avoid ASes perceived as adversarial / unreliable 2. To choose high performance paths g p p 3. As part of an accountability framework 5/24

  6. Data Plane Approaches Secure Data-Plane Protocols: S D t Pl P t l [LYWA-06] Packet Obituaries [AMISS-07] • Packet Passports Truth in advertising [WBAGS-07] Truth in advertising [WBAGS-07] Failure Localization [BGX-08] Failure Localization [BGX-08] Secure Secure AS-path tracing protocols incur overheads X proportional to the amount of traffic sent in the data plane. What path are my packets actually taking to IBM? taking to IBM? Princeton AT&T AT&T $ $ IBM Probe! Local Local ISP ISP Comcast Local, AT&T, IBM 6/23

  7. Routing Protocol Approaches to Match Data Plane R Routing Protocols + Game Theory: ti P t l G Th [NR-01] [FPS-01] [FPSS-05] [PS-04] [FKMS-05] • Shortest-path policy / Next-hop policy [FRS-06] [FSS-07] [FRS 06] [FSS 07] Shortest path policy / Next hop policy [LSZ-08] Secure BGP � Corollary: If ______, rational rational ASes have no incentive to unilaterally deviate from announcing paths that match data plane. p Princeton AT&T $ $ IBM IBM Local Local ISP ISP Local Ranking: Comcast Comcast Comcast IBM Comcast, IBM AT&T, IBM 7/24

  8. Quick background: Public-key Signatures Anyone who knows Alice’s public key can verify that yreceived the correct message from Alice. Msg, tag Alice Bob Alice’s Secret Key Alice s Secret Key Alice’s Public Key Mssg, faketag Eve Bob Alice’s P blic Alice’s Public ALARM! Key This looks great, what’s the catch? We need an infrastructure to certify the public keys.

  9. Secure BGP (1) If AS a announced path abP then b announced bP to a Assumes a public-key infrastructure that, today, we don’t have. AT&T: (IBM) AT&T: (IBM) Local: (AT&T, IBM) Princeton AT&T IBM Local ISP Local Ranking: Comcast Comcast, IBM AT&T, IBM Comcast: (IBM) Comcast: (IBM) Local: (Comcast, IBM)

  10. Secure BGP (2) If AS a announced path abP then b announced bP to a AT&T: (IBM) Princeton: (AT&T, IBM) Princeton AT&T IBM Local Pton Ranking: ISP Local, AT&T, IBM Comcast AT&T, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM Comcast: (IBM) Local: (Comcast, IBM) Princeton: (Local, Comcast, IBM)

  11. Secure BGP : Matching the Data Plane ??? If AS a announced path abP then b announced bP to a AT&T: (IBM) AT&T: (IBM) Why does Local ISP do this? Local: (AT&T, IBM) Let’s look at utility models. Princeton AT&T $ IBM Local Local Pton Ranking: ISP ISP Local, AT&T, IBM Comcast AT&T, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM Comcast: (IBM) AT&T: (IBM) Local: (Comcast, IBM) Local: (AT&T, IBM) Princeton: (Local, Comcast, IBM) Princeton: (Local, AT&T, IBM)

  12. Modeling Utility Our model of utility: Our model of utility: Model of utility in prior work: Model of utility in prior work: Utility of AS = Utility of AS = . . Utility of outgoing Utility of outgoing Utility of attracted Utility of attracted + + ( ( (data-plane) path (data-plane) path p p ) p ) p incoming traffic incoming traffic g g In all prior work: Utility is determined by the ranking function Princeton AT&T $ IBM Local Local ISP ISP ☺ Comcast Local Ranking: Comcast, IBM Local ISP has no incentive to AT&T, IBM announce mismatched paths announce mismatched paths. 12/24

  13. Modeling Utility with Traffic Attraction Our model of utility: Our model of utility: Model of utility in prior work: Model of utility in prior work: Utility of AS = . . Utility of outgoing Utility of outgoing Utility of attracted Utility of attracted = + + Utility of n (data-plane) path ( (data-plane) path ( p p ) p ) p incoming traffic incoming traffic g g Traffic-volume attractions : • AS only cares who originates traffic • Models incentive to snoop / tamper • … or increase incoming traffic volumes … or increase incoming traffic volumes Customer attractions: • AS wants to attract traffic from customers via direct link . AS wants to attract traffic from customers via direct link • Models bilateral economic relationships. Generic attractions: • AS wants to attract traffic from specific ASes via a specific path 13/23

  14. Result: Secure BGP is not Sufficient! With traffic-volume OR customer attractions, there can be an With t ffi l t OR tt ti th b incentive to announce mismatched paths, even with Secure BGP . AT&T: (IBM) Attracted Observation : Princeton does not use a shortest-path policy. Local: (AT&T, IBM) customer Princeton: (Local, AT&T, IBM) Princeton (Local AT&T IBM) Princeton AT&T $ $ IBM IBM Local Local Pton Ranking: Local, AT&T, IBM ISP ISP AT&T IBM AT&T, IBM Comcast C t Local, Comcast, IBM Local Ranking: Favorite Comcast, IBM outgoing path outgoing path AT&T IBM AT&T, IBM 14/23

  15. Result: Shortest-Path Policy is not Sufficient! (0) With t With traffic-volume OR customer attractions, there can be an ffi l t OR tt ti th b incentive to mismatch paths, even with shortest-path policies. Princeton AT&T IBM IBM Local Princeton Ranking: Ranking: Local, IBM Local, AT&T, IBM ISP AT&T, IBM AT&T, IBM AT&T IBM C Comcast t Local, Comcast, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM Local Ranking: Ranking: IBM Comcast, IBM Comcast, IBM AT&T IBM AT&T, IBM 15/23

  16. Result: Shortest-Path Policy is not Sufficient! (1) With traffic-volume OR customer attractions, there can be an With t ffi l t OR tt ti th b incentive to mismatch paths, even with shortest-path policies. Ranking: Local, IBM AT&T, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM No export to Local No export to Local AT&T Princeton IBM X Local Ranking: Local, IBM ISP AT&T, IBM C Comcast t Local, Comcast, IBM Attract: Princeton Ranking: IBM Ranking: IBM g Comcast, IBM Comcast, IBM 16/23

  17. Result: Shortest-Path Policy is not Sufficient! (2) With traffic-volume OR customer attractions, there can be an With t ffi l t OR tt ti th b incentive to mismatch paths, even with shortest-path policies. Ranking: Local, IBM AT&T, IBM AT&T, IBM Local, Comcast, IBM No export to Local No export to Local AT&T Princeton IBM X Local ISP fails Local to attract traffic ISP � � from Princeton. from Princeton Comcast C t Local, Comcast, IBM Attract: Princeton Ranking: IBM g Comcast, IBM 17/23

Recommend


More recommend