rfc9455xml2.original.xml   rfc9455.xml 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc, which is
available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space (using these PIs as follows is recommended by
the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="bcp" docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-roa-considerations-08"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="ROA considerations">Avoidance of ROA Containing Multiple I
P
Prefixes</title>
<author fullname="Zhiwei Yan" initials="Z." surname="Yan">
<organization>CNNIC</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun</street>
<city>Beijing, 100190</city>
<country>P.R. China</country>
</postal>
<email>yanzhiwei@cnnic.cn</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Randy Bush" initials="R." surname="Bush">
<organization>IIJ Research Lab &amp; Arrcus, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>5147 Crystal Springs</street>
<city>Bainbridge Island</city>
<region>Washington</region>
<code>98110</code>
<country>United States of America</country>
</postal>
<email>randy@psg.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Guanggang Geng" initials="G.G." surname="Geng"> <!DOCTYPE rfc [
<organization>Jinan University</organization> <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<address> <!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<postal> <!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
<street>No.601, West Huangpu Avenue</street> <!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
<code>510632</code> ]>
<city>Guangzhou</city>
<country>P.R. China</country>
</postal>
<email>gggeng@jnu.edu.cn</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Ties de Kock" initials="T." surname="de Kock" > <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" submissionType="IETF" category="
<organization>RIPE NCC</organization> bcp" consensus="true" docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-roa-considerations-08" number=
<address> "9455" ipr="trust200902" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="3" symRefs="true" sortRefs=
<postal> "true" updates="" obsoletes="" xml:lang="en" version="3">
<street>Stationsplein 11</street>
<city>Amsterdam</city>
<country>Netherlands</country>
</postal>
<email>tdekock@ripe.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Jiankang Yao" initials="J." surname="Yao" > <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.17.1 -->
<organization>CNNIC</organization> <front>
<address>
<postal>
<street>No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun</street>
<city>Beijing, 100190</city>
<country>P.R. China</country>
</postal>
<email>yaojk@cnnic.cn</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="April" year="2023"/> <title abbrev="ROA Considerations">Avoiding Route Origin Authorizations (ROA
<area>Operations and Management Area (ops)</area> s) Containing Multiple IP Prefixes
<workgroup>SIDR Operations</workgroup> </title>
<keyword>ROA</keyword> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9455"/>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="238"/>
<author fullname="Zhiwei Yan" initials="Z." surname="Yan">
<organization>CNNIC</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun</street>
<city>Beijing</city>
<code>100190</code>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>yanzhiwei@cnnic.cn</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Randy Bush" initials="R." surname="Bush">
<organization>IIJ Research Lab &amp; Arrcus, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>5147 Crystal Springs</street>
<city>Bainbridge Island</city>
<region>Washington</region>
<code>98110</code>
<country>United States of America</country>
</postal>
<email>randy@psg.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Guanggang Geng" initials="G." surname="Geng">
<organization>Jinan University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>No.601, West Huangpu Avenue</street>
<code>510632</code>
<city>Guangzhou</city>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>gggeng@jnu.edu.cn</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Ties de Kock" initials="T." surname="de Kock">
<organization>RIPE NCC</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Stationsplein 11</street>
<city>Amsterdam</city>
<country>Netherlands</country>
</postal>
<email>tdekock@ripe.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Jiankang Yao" initials="J." surname="Yao">
<organization>CNNIC</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun</street>
<city>Beijing</city>
<code>100190</code>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>yaojk@cnnic.cn</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="August" year="2023"/>
<area>ops</area>
<workgroup>sidrops</workgroup>
<keyword>ROA</keyword>
<keyword>Route Origin Authorization</keyword>
<abstract> <abstract>
<t>When using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), <t>When using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI),
address space holders need to issue Route Origin Authorization (ROA) address space holders need to issue Route Origin Authorization (ROA)
object(s) to authorize one or more Autonomous Systems (ASes) to originate object(s) to authorize one or more Autonomous Systems (ASes) to originate
routes to IP address prefix(es). BGP routes to IP address prefix(es).
This memo discusses operational problems which may arise from This memo discusses operational problems that may arise from
ROAs containing multiple IP prefixes and recommends that each ROA ROAs containing multiple IP prefixes and recommends that each ROA
contains a single IP prefix.</t> contain a single IP prefix.</t>
</abstract> </abstract>
</front> </front>
<middle> <middle>
<section title="Introduction"> <section>
<t>In the RPKI, a ROA is a digitally signed object which identifies that a <name>Introduction</name>
<t>In the RPKI, a ROA, which is a digitally signed object, identifies that
a
single AS has been authorized by the address space single AS has been authorized by the address space
holder to originate routes to one or more IP prefixes within the related a ddress holder to originate BGP routes to one or more IP prefixes within the relat ed address
space <xref target="RFC6482"/>.</t> space <xref target="RFC6482"/>.</t>
<t>Each ROA contains an asID field and an ipAddrBlocks field. The
<t>Each ROA contains an "asID" field and an "ipAddrBlocks" field. The asID field contains a single AS number that is authorized to
"asID" field contains a single AS number which is authorized to originate routes to the given IP address prefix(es). The ipAddrBlocks
originate routes to the given IP address prefix(es). The "ipAddrBlocks"
field contains one or more IP address prefixes to which the AS is field contains one or more IP address prefixes to which the AS is
authorized to originate the routes.</t> authorized to originate the routes.</t>
<t>If the address space holder needs to authorize more than one AS to <t>If the address space holder needs to authorize more than one AS to
advertise the same set of IP prefixes, multiple ROAs must be issued (one advertise the same set of IP prefixes, multiple ROAs must be issued (one
for each AS number <xref target="RFC6480"/>). Prior to this document, for each AS number <xref target="RFC6480"/>). Prior to this document,
there was no guidance recommending the issuance of a separate ROA for each IP there was no guidance recommending the issuance of a separate ROA for each IP
prefix or a single ROA containing multiple IP prefixes.</t> prefix or a single ROA containing multiple IP prefixes.</t>
</section> </section>
<section>
<section title="Terminology"> <name>Terminology</name>
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", <t>
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>
<xref target="RFC2119"/> ",
<xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
capitals, as shown here.</t> "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to
be
interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
shown here.
</t>
</section> </section>
<section>
<section title="Problem Statement"> <name>Problem Statement</name>
<t>An address space holder can issue a separate ROA for each of its <t>An address space holder can issue a separate ROA for each of its
routing announcements. Alternatively, for a given asID, it can issue a routing announcements. Alternatively, for a given asID, it can issue a
single ROA for multiple routing announcements, or even for all of its single ROA for multiple routing announcements, or even for all of its
routing announcements. Since a given ROA is either valid or invalid, the routing announcements. Since a given ROA is either valid or invalid, the
routing announcements for which that ROA was issued will "share fate" routing announcements for which that ROA was issued will "share fate"
when it comes to RPKI validation. Currently, no guidance is offered in when it comes to RPKI validation. Currently, no existing RFCs provide reco
existing RFCs to recommend what kinds of ROA are issued: one per prefix, mmendations about what kinds of ROAs to issue: one per prefix
or one ROA for multiple routing announcements. The problem of or one for multiple routing announcements. The problem of
fate-sharing was not discussed or addressed.</t> fate-sharing was not discussed or addressed.</t>
<t> In the RPKI trust chain, the Certification Authority (CA) certificate
<t>In the RPKI trust chain, the Certification Authority (CA) certificate issued by a parent CA to a delegatee of some resources may be revoked
issued by a parent CA to a delegate of some resources may be revoked by by the parent at any time, which would result in changes to resources specifie
the parent at any time resulting in changes to resources specified in the d
<xref target="RFC3779"/> certificate extension. Any ROA object that in the certificate extensions defined in <xref target="RFC3779"/>. Any ROA obj
includes resources which are a) no longer entirely contained in the new CA ect that
certificate, or b) contained in a new CA certificate that has not yet includes resources that are a) no longer entirely contained in the new CA
been discovered by Relying Party (RP) software, will be rejected as invali certificate or b) contained in a new CA certificate that has not yet
d. been discovered by Relying Party (RP) software will be rejected as invalid
.
Since ROA invalidity affects all routes specified in that ROA, unchanged Since ROA invalidity affects all routes specified in that ROA, unchanged
resources with associated routes via that asID cannot be separated from resources with associated routes via that asID cannot be separated from
those affected by the change in the CA certificate validity. They will those affected by the change in CA certificate validity. They will
fall under this invalid ROA even though there was no intention to change fall under this invalid ROA even though there was no intent to change
their validity. Had these resources been in a separate ROA, there would their validity. Had these resources been in a separate ROA, there would
have been no change to the issuing CA certificate, and therefore no be no change to the issuing CA certificate and therefore no
subsequent invalidity.</t> subsequent invalidity.</t>
<t>CAs have to carefully coordinate ROA updates with resource certificate <t>CAs have to carefully coordinate ROA updates with updates to a resource
updates. This process may be automated if a single entity manages both certificate.
the parent CA and the CA issuing the ROAs (Scenario D in <xref This process may be automated if a single entity manages both
target="RFC8211"/> Section 3). However, in other deployment scenarios, the parent CA and the CA issuing the ROAs (Scenario D in <xref target="RFC
8211" sectionFormat="comma" section="3.4"/>). However, in other deployment scena
rios,
this coordination becomes more complex.</t> this coordination becomes more complex.</t>
<t>As there is a single expiration time for the entire ROA, expiration <t>As there is a single expiration time for the entire ROA, expiration
will affect all prefixes in the ROA. Thus, any changes to the ROA will affect all prefixes in the ROA.
for any of the prefixes must be synchronized with any changes to Thus, changes to the ROA for any of the prefixes must be synchronized
other prefixes, especially time-limitations on authorization for a prefix. with changes to other prefixes, especially when authorization for a
prefix is time bounded.
Had these prefixes been in separately issued ROAs, the validity interval w ould be Had these prefixes been in separately issued ROAs, the validity interval w ould be
unique to each ROA, and invalidity would only be affected by re-issuance o unique to each ROA, and invalidity would only be affected by reissuance of
f the specific issuing parent CA certificate.</t>
the specific parent CA certificate which issued them.</t> <t>A prefix could be allowed to originate from an AS only for a
specific period of time, for example, if the IP prefix was leased out
<t>A prefix could be allowed to be originated from an AS only for a temporarily. If a ROA with multiple IP prefixes was used, this would be mo
specific period of time, for example if the IP prefix was leased out re difficult to manage, and potentially be more error-prone. Similarly,
temporarily. This would be more difficult to manage, and potentially be more complex routing may require changes in asID or routes for a subset of
more error-prone if a ROA with multiple IP prefixes was used. Similarly prefixes.
more complex routing may demand changes in asID or routes for a subset of Reissuance of a ROA might result in changes to the validity of
prefixes. Re-issuance of the ROA may cause change to validity for all previously received BGP routes covered by the ROA's prefixes.
routes in the affected ROA. If the time limited resources are in There will be no change to the validity of unaffected routes if
separate ROAs, or for more complex routing if each change in asID a) the time-limited resources are in separate ROAs, or b) for more
or routes for a given prefix is reflected in a change to a discrete ROA, complex routing, each change in asID or a change in routes for a
then no change to validity of unaffected routes will be caused.</t> given prefix is reflected in a change to a discrete ROA. </t>
<t>The use of ROA with a single IP prefix can minimize these <t>The use of ROA with a single IP prefix can minimize these
side-effects. It avoids fate-sharing irrespective of the causes, where side effects. It avoids fate-sharing irrespective of the cause, where
the parent CA issuing each ROA remains valid and where each ROA itself the parent CA issuing each ROA remains valid and where each ROA itself
remains valid.</t> remains valid.</t>
</section> </section>
<section>
<section title="Recommendations"> <name>Recommendations</name>
<t>Unless the CA has good reasons to the contrary, issued ROA SHOULD <t>Unless the CA has good reasons to the contrary, an issued ROA <bcp14>SH
OULD</bcp14>
contain a single IP prefix.</t> contain a single IP prefix.</t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="Security">
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations"> <name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>Issuing separate ROAs for independent IP prefixes may increase the <t>Issuing separate ROAs for independent IP prefixes may increase the
file fetch burden on RP during validation. </t> file-fetch burden on the RP during validation. </t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="IANA">
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations"> <name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>This document does not request any IANA action.</t> <t>This document has no IANA actions.</t>
</section> </section>
</middle>
<back>
<references>
<name>Normative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2
119.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3
779.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6
482.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
211.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6
480.xml"/>
</references>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="false">
<name>Acknowledgements</name>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements"> <t>The authors wish to thank the following people for their reviews and
<t>The authors wish to thank the following people for their review and contributions to this document: <contact fullname="George Michaelson"/>, <
contributions to this document: George Michaelson, Tim Bruijnzeels, Job contact fullname="Tim Bruijnzeels"/>, <contact fullname="Job
Snijders, Di Ma, Geoff Huston, Tom Harrison, Rob Austein, Stephen Kent, Snijders"/>, <contact fullname="Di Ma"/>, <contact fullname="Geoff Huston"
Christopher Morrow, Russ Housley, Ching-Heng Ku, Keyur Patel, Cuiling />, <contact fullname="Tom Harrison"/>, <contact fullname="Rob Austein"/>, <cont
Zhang and Kejun Dong. Thanks are also due to Warren Kumari for the act fullname="Stephen Kent"/>,
<contact fullname="Christopher Morrow"/>, <contact fullname="Russ Housley"
/>, <contact fullname="Ching-Heng Ku"/>, <contact fullname="Keyur Patel"/>, <con
tact fullname="Cuiling
Zhang"/>, and <contact fullname="Kejun Dong"/>. Thanks are also due to <co
ntact fullname="Sean Turner"/> for the
Security Area Directorate review. </t> Security Area Directorate review. </t>
<t>This work was supported by the Beijing Nova Program of Science and <t>This work was supported by the Beijing Nova Program of Science and
Technology under grant Z191100001119113.</t> Technology under grant Z191100001119113.</t>
<t>This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool <xref
target="RFC2629"/>.</t>
</section> </section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3779.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6482.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8211.xml'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6480.xml'?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2629.xml'?>
</references>
</back> </back>
</rfc> </rfc>
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
189 lines changed or deleted 192 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.