GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8481

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Bush Request for Comments: 8481 Internet Initiative Japan Updates: 6811 September 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721

          Clarifications to BGP Origin Validation Based on
             Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)

Abstract

 Deployment of BGP origin validation based on Resource Public Key
 Infrastructure (RPKI) is hampered by, among other things, vendor
 misimplementations in two critical areas: which routes are validated
 and whether policy is applied when not specified by configuration.
 This document is meant to clarify possible misunderstandings causing
 those misimplementations; it thus updates RFC 6811 by clarifying that
 all prefixes should have their validation state set and that policy
 must not be applied without operator configuration.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8481.

Bush Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8481 Origin Validation Clarification September 2018

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
 2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 4.  Evaluate ALL Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 5.  Set State, Don't Act  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1. Introduction

 Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among
 other things, vendor misimplementations in two critical areas: which
 routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified
 by configuration.  This document is meant to clarify possible
 misunderstandings causing those misimplementations.
 When a route is distributed into BGP, the origin validation state is
 set to NotFound, Valid, or Invalid per [RFC6811].  Operational
 testing has shown that the specifications of that RFC were not
 sufficient to avoid divergent implementations.  This document
 attempts to clarify two areas which seem to cause confusion.
 The implementation issues seem not to be about how to validate, i.e.,
 how to decide if a route is NotFound, Valid, or Invalid.  The issues
 seem to be which routes should be evaluated and have their evaluation
 state set, and whether to apply policy without operator
 configuration.

Bush Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8481 Origin Validation Clarification September 2018

2. Requirements Language

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
 capitals, as shown here.

3. Suggested Reading

 It is assumed that the reader understands BGP [RFC4271], the RPKI
 [RFC6480], Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) [RFC6482], and
 RPKI-based Prefix Validation [RFC6811].

4. Evaluate ALL Prefixes

 Significant Clarification: A router MUST evaluate and set the
 validation state of all routes in BGP coming from any source (e.g.,
 eBGP, iBGP, or redistribution from static or connected routes),
 unless specifically configured otherwise by the operator.  Otherwise,
 the operator does not have the ability to drop Invalid routes coming
 from every potential source and is therefore liable to complaints
 from neighbors about propagation of Invalid routes.  For this reason,
 [RFC6811] says:
    When a BGP speaker receives an UPDATE from a neighbor, it SHOULD
    perform a lookup as described above for each of the Routes in the
    UPDATE message.  The lookup SHOULD also be applied to routes that
    are redistributed into BGP from another source, such as another
    protocol or a locally defined static route.
 [RFC6811] goes on to say, "An implementation MAY provide
 configuration options to control which routes the lookup is applied
 to."
 When redistributing into BGP from any source (e.g., IGP, iBGP, or
 from static or connected routes), there is no AS_PATH in the input to
 allow RPKI validation of the originating Autonomous System (AS).  In
 such cases, the router MUST use the AS of the router's BGP
 configuration.  If that is ambiguous because of confederation, AS
 migration, or other multi-AS configuration, then the router
 configuration MUST provide a means of specifying the AS to be used on
 the redistribution, either per redistribution or globally.

Bush Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8481 Origin Validation Clarification September 2018

5. Set State, Don't Act

 Significant Clarification: Once routes are evaluated and have their
 state set, the operator should be in complete control of any policy
 applied based on the evaluation state.  Absent specific operator
 configuration, policy MUST NOT be applied.
 Automatic origin validation policy actions such as those described in
 "BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community" [RFC8097]
 MUST NOT be carried out or otherwise applied unless specifically
 configured by the operator.

6. Security Considerations

 This document does not create security considerations beyond those of
 [RFC6811].

7. IANA Considerations

 This document has no IANA actions.

8. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
            Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
 [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
            Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,
            February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.
 [RFC6482]  Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
            Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.
 [RFC6811]  Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
            Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6811>.

Bush Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8481 Origin Validation Clarification September 2018

 [RFC8097]  Mohapatra, P., Patel, K., Scudder, J., Ward, D., and R.
            Bush, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended
            Community", RFC 8097, DOI 10.17487/RFC8097, March 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8097>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
            2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
            May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Acknowledgments

 Many thanks to John Scudder, who had the patience to give
 constructive review multiple times, and Keyur Patel, who noted that
 the AS might have to be specified.  George Michaelson, Jay
 Borkenhagen, John Heasley, and Matthias Waehlisch kindly helped clean
 up loose wording.

Author's Address

 Randy Bush
 Internet Initiative Japan
 5147 Crystal Springs
 Bainbridge Island, Washington  98110
 United States of America
 Email: randy@psg.com

Bush Standards Track [Page 5]

/home/gen.uk/domains/wiki.gen.uk/public_html/data/pages/rfc/rfc8481.txt · Last modified: 2018/09/27 02:04 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki