Thinking about using ASPA to protect your network from BGP route leak incidents? Before you dive in, here's what you need to know and what to look for as you plan your deployment!
Executive Briefing on ASPA
ASPA is short for Autonomous System Provider Authorization. The idea is that an AS holder publishes a list of who their upstream providers are into the global RPKI, and then ISPs around the world use that information to securely determine the plausibility of AS_PATHs and automatically mitigate route leaks. In other words: when you create an ASPA you explicitly authorize your upstreams to provide transit service for your AS, and in turn the world’s BGP routers can run an algorithm to check whether a BGP route involving your AS aligns with published ASPA objects. This all may sound simple enough, but there are a few gotchas!
ASPA’s Gotcha’s
Changes to RPKI-to-Router (RTR) Protocol – What’s New in Version 2?
RTR v2 is a major improvement over older versions, and not just because of ASPA support! Based on more than a decade of experience with RTR v0 and v1 (and, a fair amount of insistence from yours truly), the IETF made several well-considered refinements to the RTR protocol. The latest RTR version is an evolution, not a revolution. RTR v2 is more robust, more efficient, easier to operationalize, and easier to troubleshoot, here is why:
I recommend everyone to take advantage of these small quality-of-life improvements to the RTR protocol. Whether you intend to deploy ASPA verification or not, RTR v2 definitely is worth the upgrade because of its improvements to RPKI ROA distribution and general operational management!
ASPA Routing Policy Considerations
An effective implementation of ASPA verification at your EBGP network perimeter is to simply reject ASPA-invalid routes and nothing more. Not importing any invalid routes received via EBGP really is all there is to it!
There is no benefit to modifying priority or preference of routes based on ASPA validation state, nor is there a need to add BGP communities based on the validity state. See the IETF’s Guidance to Avoid Carrying RPKI Validation States in BGP Path Attributes best current practice guidelines for an elaboration on why not setting BGP communities based on validation states is a good practice.
rtr e.f.g.h {
min-version 2 # RTR v2 is needed for ASPA
tcp md5sig password s3cr3tk3y # Protect the session
}
neighbor a.b.c.d {
remote-as xyz
role peer # must specify local role for ASPA & RFC 9234
}
# Routing policy
deny quick from ebgp ovs invalid # reject import of ROA-invalid routes
deny quick from ebgp avs invalid # reject import of ASPA-invalid routesExample OpenBGPD configuration enabling both ASPA verification and RFC 9234 protection
State of current ASPA deployment
Three RIRs (namely APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC) started offering functionality to create ASPA objects through their respective RPKI-management web portal around the start of 2026. Since then, a few thousand network operators have published ASPA records for their ASes. This looks like a healthy steady growth curve!
Perhaps soon enough, thanks to ASPA & OTC, big disruptive route leaks will be a thing of the past?
If you’d like to try ASPA, OpenBSD 8.0 comes with a fully fledged ASPA stack (OpenBGPD, rpki-client, and OpenRTRd) in its base installation.
Share your experience and expectations regarding DDoS protection. Your answers will help us tailor solutions to meet your cybersecurity needs.
Tell us about your company’s infrastructure and critical systems. This will help us understand the scope of protection you require.
Help us learn about how decisions are made in your company. This information will guide us in offering the most relevant solutions.
Let us know what drives your choices when it comes to DDoS protection. Your input will help us focus on what matters most to you.