idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 21, 2011) is 4843 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-sidr-arch-11 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-sidr-arch (ref. 'I-D.ietf-sidr-arch') == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-00 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group R. Bush 3 Internet-Draft IIJ 4 Intended status: BCP January 21, 2011 5 Expires: July 25, 2011 7 RPKI-Based Origin Validation Operation 8 draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-03 10 Abstract 12 Deployment of the RPKI-based BGP origin validation has many 13 operational considerations. This document attempts to collect and 14 present them. It is expected to evolve as RPKI-based origin 15 validation is deployed and the dynamics are better understood. 17 Requirements Language 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 25, 2011. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. RPKI Distribution and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 4. Within a Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 5. Routing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 6. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 1. Introduction 73 RPKI-based origin validation relies on widespread propagation of the 74 Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]. How 75 the RPKI is distributed and maintained globally is a serious concern 76 from many aspects. 78 The global RPKI has yet to be deployed, only a testbed exists, and 79 some beta testing is being done by the IANA and some RIRs. It is 80 expected to be deployed incrementally over a number of years. It is 81 thought that origin validation based on the RPKI will deploy over the 82 next year to five years. 84 Origin validation only need be done by an AS's border routers and is 85 designed so that it can be used to protect announcements which are 86 originated by large providers, upstreams and downstreams, and by 87 small stub/entetprise/edge routers. 89 Origin validation has been designed to be deployed on current routers 90 without hardware upgrade. It should be used by everyone from large 91 backbones to small stub/entetprise/edge routers. 93 RPKI-based origin validation has been designed so that, with prudent 94 local routing policies, there is little risk that normal Internet 95 routing is threatened by unprudent deployment of the global RPKI, see 96 Section 5. 98 2. Suggested Reading 100 It is assumed that the reader understands BGP, [RFC4271], the RPKI, 101 see [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch], the RPKI Repository Structure, see 102 [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct], ROAs, see [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-format], 103 the RPKI to Router Protocol, see [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr], and RPKI- 104 based Prefix Validation, see [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]. 106 3. RPKI Distribution and Maintenance 108 The RPKI is a distributed database containing certificates, CRLs, 109 manifests, ROAs, and Ghostbuster Records as described in 110 [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct]. Policies and considerations for RPKI 111 object generation and maintenance are discussed elsewhere. 113 A local valid cache containing all RPKI data may be gathered from the 114 global distributed database using the rsync protocol and a validation 115 tool such as rcynic. 117 Validated caches may also be created and maintained from other 118 validated caches. An operator should take maximum advantage of this 119 feature to minimize load on the global distributed RPKI database. 121 As RPKI-based origin validation relies on the availability of RPKI 122 data, operators will likely want border routers to have one or more 123 nearby caches. 125 For redundancy, a router may peer with more than one cache at the 126 same time. Peering with two or more, one local and others remote, is 127 recommended. 129 If an operator or site trusts upstreams to carry their traffic, they 130 might as well trust the RPKI data those upstreams cache and peer with 131 of those caches. Note that this places an obligation on those 132 upstreams to maintain fresh and reliable caches. 134 A transit provider or a network with peers will want to validate 135 origins in announcements made by downstreams and peers. They still 136 may choose to trust the caches provided by their upstreams. 138 4. Within a Network 140 Origin validation need only be done by edge routers in a network, 141 those which border other networks/ASs. 143 A validating router will use the result of origin validation to 144 influence local policy within its network, see Section 5. In 145 deployment this policy should fit into the AS's existing policy, 146 preferences, etc. This allows a network to incrementally deploy 147 validation capable border routers. 149 eBGP speakers which face more critical peers or up/downstreams would 150 be candidates for the earliest deployment. Validating more critical 151 received announcements should be considered in partial deployment. 153 5. Routing Policy 155 Origin validation based on the RPKI merely marks a received 156 announcement as having an origin which is Valid, NotFound, or 157 Invalid. See [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]. How this is used in 158 routing is specified by the operator's local policy. 160 Local policy using relative preference is suggested to manage the 161 uncertainty associated with a system in flux, applying local policy 162 to eliminate the threat of unroutability of prefixes due to ill- 163 advised certification policies and/or incorrect certification data. 164 E.g. until the community feels comfortable relying on RPKI data, 165 routing on Invalid origin validity, though at a low preference, will 166 likely be prevalent for a long time. 168 As origin validation will be rolled out incrementally, coverage will 169 be incomplete for a long time. Therefore, routing on NotFound 170 validity state will be advisable for a long time. As the transition 171 moves forward, the number of BGP announcements with validation state 172 NotFound should decrease. Hence an operator's policy should not be 173 overly strict, preferring Valid announcements, attaching a lower 174 preference to, but still using, NotFound announcements, and giving 175 very low preference to, but still using, Invalid announcements. 177 Some may choose to use the large Local-Preference hammer. Others 178 might choose to let AS-Path rule and set their internal metric, which 179 comes after AS-Path in the BGP decision process. 181 When using a metric which is also influenced by other local policy, 182 the operator should be careful not to create privilege upgrade 183 vulnerabilities. E.g. if Local Pref is set depending on validity 184 state, be careful that peer community signaling can not upgrade an 185 invalid announcement to valid or better. 187 Announcements with Valid origins SHOULD be preferred over those with 188 NotFound or Invalid origins. 190 Announcements with NotFound origins SHOULD be preferred over those 191 with Invalid origins. 193 Announcements with Invalid origins MAY be used, but SHOULD be less 194 preferred than those with Valid or NotFound. 196 6. Notes 198 Like the DNS, the global RPKI presents only a loosely consistent 199 view, depending on timing, updating, fetching, etc. Thus, one cache 200 or router may have different data about a particular prefix than 201 another cache or router. There is no 'fix' for this, it is the 202 nature of distributed data with distributed caches. 204 There is some uncertainty about the origin AS of aggregates and what, 205 if any, ROA can be used. The long range solution to this is the 206 deprecation of AS-SETs, see [I-D.wkumari-deprecate-as-sets]. 208 7. Security Considerations 210 As the BGP origin is not signed, origin validation is open to 211 malicious spoofing. It is only designed to deal with inadvertent 212 mis-advertisement. 214 Origin validation does nothing about AS-Path validation and therefore 215 is open to monkey in the middle path attacks. 217 The data plane may not follow the control plane. 219 Be aware of the class of privilege escalation issues discussed in 220 Section 5 above. 222 8. IANA Considerations 224 This document has no IANA Considerations. 226 9. Acknowledgments 228 The author wishes to thank Rob Austein, Steve Bellovin, Pradosh 229 Mohapatra, Chris Morrow, Keyur Patel, Heather and Jason Schiller, 230 John Scudder, Maureen Stillman, and Dave Ward. 232 10. References 234 10.1. Normative References 236 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 237 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 239 [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch] 240 Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support 241 Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-11 (work in 242 progress), September 2010. 244 [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct] 245 Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for 246 Resource Certificate Repository Structure", 247 draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-06 (work in progress), 248 November 2010. 250 [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-format] 251 Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route 252 Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", 253 draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format-09 (work in progress), 254 November 2010. 256 [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr] 257 Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The RPKI/Router Protocol", 258 draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-07 (work in progress), 259 January 2011. 261 [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate] 262 Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. 263 Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", 264 draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-00 (work in progress), 265 July 2010. 267 10.2. Informative References 269 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 270 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 272 [I-D.wkumari-deprecate-as-sets] 273 Kumari, W., "Deprecation of BGP AS_SET, AS_CONFED_SET.", 274 draft-wkumari-deprecate-as-sets-01 (work in progress), 275 September 2010. 277 Author's Address 279 Randy Bush 280 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 281 5147 Crystal Springs 282 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 283 US 285 Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1 286 Email: randy@psg.com