< draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-01.txt   draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02.txt >
Network Working Group M. Candela Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft NTT Internet-Draft IIJ & Arrcus
Intended status: Standards Track R. Bush Intended status: Standards Track M. Candela
Expires: July 23, 2021 IIJ & Arrcus Expires: August 12, 2021 NTT
W. Kumari W. Kumari
Google Google
R. Housley R. Housley
Vigil Security Vigil Security
January 19, 2021 February 8, 2021
Finding and Using Geofeed Data Finding and Using Geofeed Data
draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-01 draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how to find and authenticate geofeed data. This document describes how to find and authenticate geofeed data.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Geofeed Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Geofeed Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. inetnum: Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. inetnum: Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Authenticating Geofeed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Authenticating Geofeed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Providers of Internet content and other services may wish to Providers of Internet content and other services may wish to
customize those services based on the geographic location of the user customize those services based on the geographic location of the user
of the service. This is often done using the source IP address used of the service. This is often done using the source IP address used
to contact the service. Also, infrastructure and other services to contact the service. Also, infrastructure and other services
might wish to publish the locale of their services. [RFC8805] might wish to publish the locale of their services. [RFC8805]
defines geofeed, a syntax to associate geographic locales with IP defines geofeed, a syntax to associate geographic locales with IP
addresses. But it does not specify how to find the relevant geofeed addresses. But it does not specify how to find the relevant geofeed
data given an IP address. data given an IP address.
This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy
Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC2622] inetnum: class [INETNUM] to Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC4012] inetnum: class [INETNUM] to
refer to geofeed data, and how to prudently use them. In all places refer to geofeed data, and how to prudently use them. In all places
inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be assumed [INET6NUM]. inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be assumed [INET6NUM].
An optional, but utterly awesome, means for authenticating geofeed An optional, but utterly awesome, means for authenticating geofeed
data is also defined. data is also defined.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
skipping to change at page 3, line 23 skipping to change at page 3, line 23
Section 3 this document specifies how to find the relevant geofeed Section 3 this document specifies how to find the relevant geofeed
file given an IP address. file given an IP address.
Geofeed data for large providers with significant horizontal scale Geofeed data for large providers with significant horizontal scale
and high granularity can be quite large. The size of a file can be and high granularity can be quite large. The size of a file can be
even larger if an unsigned geofeed file combines data for many even larger if an unsigned geofeed file combines data for many
prefixes, as may be likely if the location data are maintained by a prefixes, as may be likely if the location data are maintained by a
different department than address management, dual IPv4/IPv6 spaces different department than address management, dual IPv4/IPv6 spaces
are represented, etc. are represented, etc.
[RFC8805] geofeed data may reveal the approximate location of an IP
address, which might in turn reveal the approximate location of an
individual user. Unfortunately, [RFC8805] provides no privacy
guidance on avoiding or ameliorating possible damage due to this
exposure of the user. In publishing pointers to geofeed files as
described in this document the operator should be aware of this
exposure in geofeed data and be cautious. All the privacy
considerations of [RFC8805] Section 4 apply to this document.
This document also suggests optional data for geofeed files to This document also suggests optional data for geofeed files to
provide stronger authenticity to the data. provide stronger authenticity to the data.
3. inetnum: Class 3. inetnum: Class
RPSL, [RFC2622], as used by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), RPSL, [RFC4012], as used by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs),
has been augmented with the inetnum: [INETNUM] and the inet6num: has been augmented with the inetnum: [INETNUM] and the inet6num:
[INET6NUM] classes; each of which describes an IP address range and [INET6NUM] classes; each of which describes an IP address range and
its attributes. its attributes.
Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed: Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed:
attribute in the inetnum: class. Until such time, this document attribute in the inetnum: class. Until such time, this document
defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains an defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains an
HTTPS URL of a geofeed file. The format MUST be as in this example, HTTPS URL of a geofeed file. The format MUST be as in this example,
"remarks: Geofeed " followed by a URL which will vary. "remarks: Geofeed " followed by a URL which will vary.
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
"Comment" attribute must be treated as "remarks". "Comment" attribute must be treated as "remarks".
4. Authenticating Geofeed Data 4. Authenticating Geofeed Data
The question arises of whether a particular geofeed data set is The question arises of whether a particular geofeed data set is
valid, i.e. authorized by the 'owner' of the IP address space and is valid, i.e. authorized by the 'owner' of the IP address space and is
authoritative in some sense. The inetnum: which points to the authoritative in some sense. The inetnum: which points to the
geofeed file provides some assurance. Unfortunately the RPSL in many geofeed file provides some assurance. Unfortunately the RPSL in many
repositories is weakly authenticated at best. An approach where RPSL repositories is weakly authenticated at best. An approach where RPSL
was signed a la [RFC7909] would be good, except it would have to be was signed a la [RFC7909] would be good, except it would have to be
deployed by all RPSL registries, and there are a fair number of them. deployed by all RPSL registries, and there is a fair number of them.
An optional authenticator MAY be appended to a geofeed file. It An optional authenticator MAY be appended to a geofeed file. It
would be essentially a digest of the main body of the file signed by would be essentially a digest of the main body of the file signed by
the private key of the relevant RPKI certificate for the covering the private key of the relevant RPKI certificate for the covering
address range. One needs a format that bundles the relevant RPKI address range. One needs a format that bundles the relevant RPKI
certificate with the signature and the digest of the geofeed text. certificate with the signature and the digest of the geofeed text.
[I-D.michaelson-rpki-rta] describes a Cryptographic Message Syntax [I-D.michaelson-rpki-rta] describes a Cryptographic Message Syntax
(CMS) profile for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA) (CMS) profile for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA)
based on the RPKI. While this is expected to become applicable in based on the RPKI. While this is expected to become applicable in
skipping to change at page 6, line 51 skipping to change at page 7, line 20
use other sources to cross-validate the data. All of the Security use other sources to cross-validate the data. All of the Security
Considerations of [RFC8805] apply here as well. Considerations of [RFC8805] apply here as well.
As mentioned in Section 4, many RPSL repositories have weak if any As mentioned in Section 4, many RPSL repositories have weak if any
authentication. This would allow spoofing of inetnum: objects authentication. This would allow spoofing of inetnum: objects
pointing to malicious geofeed files. Section 4 suggests an pointing to malicious geofeed files. Section 4 suggests an
unfortunately complex method for stronger authentication based on the unfortunately complex method for stronger authentication based on the
RPKI. RPKI.
If an inetnum: for a wide prefix (e.g. a /16) points to an RPKI- If an inetnum: for a wide prefix (e.g. a /16) points to an RPKI-
signed geofeed file, a customer or attacker could publish a unsigned signed geofeed file, a customer or attacker could publish an unsigned
equal or narrower (e.g. a /24) inetnum: in a whois registry which has equal or narrower (e.g. a /24) inetnum: in a whois registry which has
weak authorization. weak authorization.
The RPSL providers have had to throttle fetching from their servers The RPSL providers have had to throttle fetching from their servers
due to too-frequent queries. Usually they throttle by the querying due to too-frequent queries. Usually they throttle by the querying
IP address or block. Similar defenses will likely need to be IP address or block. Similar defenses will likely need to be
deployed by geofeed file servers. deployed by geofeed file servers.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
Description OID Specification Description OID Specification
----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.47 [RFC-TBD] id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.47 [RFC-TBD]
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Rob Austein for CMS and detached signature clue. George Thanks to Rob Austein for CMS and detached signature clue. George
Michaelson for the first, and a substantial, external review. Erik Michaelson for the first, and a substantial, external review. Erik
Kline who was too shy to agree to co-authorship. Additionally, we Kline who was too shy to agree to co-authorship. Additionally, we
express our gratitude to early implementors, including Menno express our gratitude to early implementors, including Menno
Schepers, Flavio Luciani, Eric Dugas, and Kevin Pack. Also to Schepers, Flavio Luciani, Eric Dugas, Job Snijders who provided a CLI
geolocation providers that are consuming geofeeds with this described demo, and Kevin Pack. Also to geolocation providers that are
solution, Jonathan Kosgei (ipdata.co), and Ben Dowling (ipinfo.io). consuming geofeeds with this described solution, Jonathan Kosgei
(ipdata.co), and Ben Dowling (ipinfo.io). For reviews, we thank
Antonio Prado.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[INET6NUM] [INET6NUM]
RIPE, "Description of the INET6NUM Object", RIPE, "Description of the INET6NUM Object",
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and- <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/ asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary- rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
skipping to change at page 8, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and- <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/ asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary- rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
objects/4-2-4-description-of-the-inetnum-object>. objects/4-2-4-description-of-the-inetnum-object>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2622] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
"Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2622, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2622>.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC3852] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", [RFC3852] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
RFC 3852, DOI 10.17487/RFC3852, July 2004, RFC 3852, DOI 10.17487/RFC3852, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3852>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3852>.
[RFC4012] Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky,
"Routing Policy Specification Language next generation
(RPSLng)", RFC 4012, DOI 10.17487/RFC4012, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4012>.
[RFC5485] Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft [RFC5485] Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft
Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009, Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8805] Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W. [RFC8805] Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W.
Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation
skipping to change at page 18, line 46 skipping to change at page 18, line 46
# 0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAHUrA4PaJG42BD3hpF8U0usnV3Dg5NQh97SfyKTk7 # 0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAHUrA4PaJG42BD3hpF8U0usnV3Dg5NQh97SfyKTk7
# YHhhwu/936gkmAew8ODRTCddMvMObWkjj7/XeR+WKffaTF1EAdZ1L6REV+GlV91 # YHhhwu/936gkmAew8ODRTCddMvMObWkjj7/XeR+WKffaTF1EAdZ1L6REV+GlV91
# cYnFkT9ldn4wHQnNNncfAehk5PClYUUQ0gqjdJT1hdaolT83b3ttekyYIiwPmHE # cYnFkT9ldn4wHQnNNncfAehk5PClYUUQ0gqjdJT1hdaolT83b3ttekyYIiwPmHE
# xRaNkSvKenlNqcriaaf3rbQy9dc2d1KxrL2429n134ICqjKeRnHkXXrCWDmyv/3 # xRaNkSvKenlNqcriaaf3rbQy9dc2d1KxrL2429n134ICqjKeRnHkXXrCWDmyv/3
# imwYkXpiMxw44EZqDjl36MiWsRDLdgoijBBcGbibwyAfGeR46k5raZCGvxG+4xa # imwYkXpiMxw44EZqDjl36MiWsRDLdgoijBBcGbibwyAfGeR46k5raZCGvxG+4xa
# O8PDTxTfIYwAnBjRBKAqAZ7yX5xHfm58jUXsZJ7Ileq1S7G6Kk= # O8PDTxTfIYwAnBjRBKAqAZ7yX5xHfm58jUXsZJ7Ileq1S7G6Kk=
# End Signature: 192.0.2.0/24 # End Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Massimo Candela
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp 2132 WT
Netherlands
Email: massimo@ntt.net
Randy Bush Randy Bush
IIJ & Arrcus IIJ & Arrcus
5147 Crystal Springs 5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
United States of America United States of America
Email: randy@psg.com Email: randy@psg.com
Massimo Candela
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp 2132 WT
Netherlands
Email: massimo@ntt.net
Warren Kumari Warren Kumari
Google Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
US US
Email: warren@kumari.net Email: warren@kumari.net
Russ Housley Russ Housley
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 42 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/