idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-04.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 seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (August 10, 2018) is 2058 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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 Internet Initiative Japan 4 Updates: 6811 (if approved) August 10, 2018 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: February 11, 2019 8 BGP RPKI-Based Origin Validation Clarifications 9 draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-04 11 Abstract 13 Deployment of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) based BGP 14 origin validation is hampered by, among other things, vendor mis- 15 implementations in two critical areas: which routes are validated and 16 whether policy is applied when not specified by configuration. This 17 document is meant to clarify possible misunderstandings causing those 18 mis-implementations; and thus updates RFC6811 by clarifying that all 19 prefixes should have their validation state set, and that policy must 20 not be applied without operator configuration. 22 Requirements Language 24 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 25 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to 26 be interpreted as described in [RFC8174] only when they appear in all 27 upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English 28 words, without normative meaning. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 11, 2019. 47 Internet-DrafBGP RPKI-Based Origin Validation Clarifications August 2018 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 56 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 57 publication of this document. Please review these documents 58 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 59 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 60 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 61 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 62 described in the Simplified BSD License. 64 1. Introduction 66 Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among 67 other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas, which 68 routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified 69 by configuration. This document is meant to clarify possible 70 misunderstandings causing those mis-implementations. 72 When a route is distributed into BGP, the origin validation state of 73 the is set to as NotFound, Valid, or Invalid per [RFC6811]. 74 Operational testing has shown that the specifications of that RFC 75 were not sufficient to avoid divergent implementations. This 76 document attempts to clarify two areas seeming to cause confusion. 78 The implementation issues seem not to be about how to validate, i.e., 79 how to decide if a route is NotFound, Valid, or Invalid. The issues 80 seem to be which routes to evaluate and set their evaluation state, 81 and whether to apply policy without operator configuration. 83 2. Suggested Reading 85 It is assumed that the reader understands BGP, [RFC4271], the RPKI, 86 [RFC6480], Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs), [RFC6482], and RPKI- 87 based Prefix Validation, [RFC6811]. 89 3. Evaluate ALL Prefixes 91 Significant Clarification: A router MUST evaluate and set the 92 validation state of all routes in BGP coming from any source (eBGP, 93 iBGP, or redistribution from static, connected, etc.), unless 94 specifically configured otherwise by the operator. Else the operator 95 does not have the ability to drop Invalid routes coming from every 96 potential source; and is therefore liable to complaints from 98 Internet-DrafBGP RPKI-Based Origin Validation Clarifications August 2018 100 neighbors about propagation of Invalid routes. For this reason, 101 [RFC6811] says 103 "When a BGP speaker receives an UPDATE from a neighbor, it SHOULD 104 perform a lookup as described above for each of the Routes in the 105 UPDATE message. The lookup SHOULD also be applied to routes that are 106 redistributed into BGP from another source, such as another protocol 107 or a locally defined static route." 109 [RFC6811] goes on to say "An implementation MAY provide configuration 110 options to control which routes the lookup is applied to." 112 When redistributing into BGP from connected, static, IGP, iBGP, etc., 113 there is no AS_PATH in the input to allow RPKI validation of the 114 originating AS. In such cases, the router SHOULD use the AS of the 115 router's BGP configuration. If that is ambiguous because of 116 confederation, AS migration, or other multi-AS configuration, then 117 the router configuration MUST provide a means of specifying the AS to 118 be used on the redistribution, either per redistribution or globally. 120 4. Set State, Don't Act 122 Significant Clarification: Once routes are evaluated and have their 123 state set, the operator should be in complete control of any policy 124 applied based on the evaluation state. Absent specific operator 125 configuration, policy MUST NOT be applied. 127 Automatic origin validation policy actions such as those described in 128 [RFC8097], BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community, 129 MUST NOT be carried out or otherwise applied unless specifically 130 configured by the operator. 132 5. Security Considerations 134 This document does not create security considerations beyond those of 135 [RFC6811]. 137 6. IANA Considerations 139 This document has no IANA Considerations. 141 7. Acknowledgments 143 Many thanks to John Scudder who had the patience to give constructive 144 review multiple times, and to Keyur Patel who noted that the AS might 145 have to be specified. George Michaelson, Jay Borkenhagen, John 146 Heasley, and Matthias Waehlisch kindly helped clean up loose wording. 148 Internet-DrafBGP RPKI-Based Origin Validation Clarifications August 2018 150 8. References 152 8.1. Normative References 154 [RFC6482] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route 155 Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, 156 DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012, 157 . 159 [RFC6811] Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. 160 Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, 161 DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013, 162 . 164 [RFC8097] Mohapatra, P., Patel, K., Scudder, J., Ward, D., and R. 165 Bush, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended 166 Community", RFC 8097, DOI 10.17487/RFC8097, March 2017, 167 . 169 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 170 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 171 May 2017, . 173 8.2. Informative References 175 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 176 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 177 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 178 . 180 [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support 181 Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480, 182 February 2012, . 184 Author's Address 186 Randy Bush 187 Internet Initiative Japan 188 5147 Crystal Springs 189 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 190 US 192 Email: randy@psg.com