Skip to main content

Routing Policy Specification Language next generation (RPSLng)

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4012.
Authors Joao da Silva Damas , Andrei Robachevski , Larry Blunk , Florent Parent
Last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2004-08-09)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 4012 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Bert Wijnen
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                           L. Blunk
Internet-Draft                                             Merit Network
Updates: 2622, 2725 (if approved)                               J. Damas
Expires: January 21, 2005                   Internet Software Consortium
                                                               F. Parent
                                                          A. Robachevsky
                                                                RIPE NCC
                                                           July 23, 2004

     Routing Policy Specification Language next generation (RPSLng)

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
   disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 21, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.


   This memo presents a new set of simple extensions to the Routing
   Policy Specification Language (RPSL) enabling the language to also
   document routing policies for the IPv6 and multicast address families
   currently used in the Internet.

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Specifying routing policy for different address families . . .  4
     2.1   Ambiguity Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2   The afi dictionary attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3   RPSL dictionary extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4   IPv6 RPSL types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5   mp-import, mp-export, and mp-default . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.5.1   <mp-peering> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.5.2   <mp-filter>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.5.3   Policy examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  route6 Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Updates to existing Classes to support the extensions  . . . . 10
     4.1   as-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2   route-set Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3   filter-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4   peering-set Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.5   inet-rtr Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.6   rtr-set Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  RFC 2725 extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1   Authorization model for route6 Objects . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

1.  Introduction

   RFC 2622 [1] defines the RPSL language for the IPv4 unicast routing
   protocols and a series of guidelines for extending the RPSL language
   itself.  Additionally, security extensions to the RPSL language are
   specified in RFC 2725 [2].

   This document proposes to extend RPSL according to the following
   goals and requirements:
   o  Provide RPSL extensibility in the dimension of address families.
      Specifically, to allow users to document routing policy for IPv6
      and multicast.
   o  Extensions should be backward compatible with minimal impact on
      existing tools and processes, following Section 10 of RFC 2622 [1]
      for guidelines on extending RPSL.
   o  Maintain clarity and non-ambiguity: RPSL information is used by
      humans in addition to software tools.
   o  Minimize duplication of information, particularly when routing
      policies for different address families are the same.

   The addition of IPv6 and multicast support to RPSL leads to four
   distinct routing policies that need to be distinguished in this
   specification, namely, (IPv4 {unicast|multicast}, IPv6

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

2.  Specifying routing policy for different address families

   Routing policy is currently specified in the aut-num class using
   "import:", "export:", and "default:" attributes.  Sometimes it is
   important to distinguish policy for different address families, as
   well as a unicast routing policy from a multicast one.

   While the syntax of the existing import, export, and default
   attributes could be extended, this would present backward
   compatibility issues and could undermine clarity in the expressions.

   Keeping this in mind, the "import:", "export:", and "default:"
   attributes implicitly specify IPv4 unicast policy and remain as
   defined previously in RPSL, and new multi-protocol (prefixed with the
   string "mp-") attributes are introduced.  These new "mp-" attributes
   will be described below.

2.1  Ambiguity Resolution

   It is possible that the same peering can be covered by more than one
   multi-protocol policy attribute or by a combination of multi-protocol
   policy attributes (when specifying IPv4 unicast policy) and the
   previously defined IPv4 unicast policy attributes.  In these cases,
   implementations should follow the specification-order rule as defined
   in Section 6.4 of RFC 2622 [1].  Namely, to break the ambiguity, the
   action corresponding to the first peering specification is used.

2.2  The afi dictionary attribute

   In this section we introduce a new dictionary attribute:

   Address Family Identifier, <afi>, is an RPSL list of address families
   for which a given routing policy expression should be evaluated.
   <afi> is optional within the new multi-protocol attributes introduced
   in the aut-num class.  A pseudo identifier named "any" is defined to
   allow for more compact policy expressions with converged routing

   The possible values for <afi> are:
      ipv4 (equivalent to ipv4.unicast, ipv4.multicast)
      ipv6 (equivalent to ipv6.unicast, ipv6.multicast)
      any (equivalent to ipv4, ipv6)
      any.unicast (equivalent to ipv4.unicast, ipv6.unicast)
      any.multicast (equivalent to ipv4.multicast, ipv6.multicast)

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   Appearance of these values in an attribute must be preceded by the
   keyword afi.

   An <afi-list> is defined as a comma separated list of one or more afi

2.3  RPSL dictionary extensions

   In order to support IPv6 addresses specified with the next-hop
   rp-attribute, a new predefined dictionary type entitled
   "ipv6_address" is added to the RPSL dictionary.  The definition of
   this type is taken from Section 2.2 of RFC 3513 [3].

   The next-hop rp-attribute is expanded in the dictionary as follows:

   rp-attribute: # next hop router in a static route
                 operator=(union ipv4_address, ipv6_address, enum[self])

   A new value has been added for the <protocol> dictionary

   MPBGP is understood to be BGP4 with multi-protocol extensions (often
   referred to as BGP4+).  BGP4+ could not be used as the '+' character
   is not allowed by the RPSL specification in protocol names.

2.4  IPv6 RPSL types

   This document will reference three new IPv6 RPSL types, namely,
   <ipv6-address>, <ipv6-address-prefix>, and
   <ipv6-address-prefix-range>.  The <ipv6-address> and
   <ipv6-address-prefix> types are defined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of
   RFC 3513 [3].  The <ipv6-address-prefix-range> type adds a range
   operator to the <ipv6-address-prefix> type.  The range operator is
   defined in Section 2 of RFC 2622 [1].

2.5  mp-import, mp-export, and mp-default

   Three new policy attributes are introduced in the aut-num Class:

   These attributes incorporate the afi (address-family) specification.
   Note that the afi specification is optional.  If no afi specification
   is present, the policy expression is presumed to apply to all
   protocol families, namely, ipv4.unicast, ipv4.multicast,

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   ipv6.unicast, ipv6.multicast.  This is the equivalent of the afi
   specification "afi any".  The mp-import and mp-export attributes have
   both a basic policy specification and a more powerful structured
   policy specification.

   The syntax for the mp-default attribute and the basic policy
   specification of the mp-import and mp-export attributes is as

   Attribute  Value                                         Type
   mp-import  [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              [afi <afi-list>]                              multi-valued
              from <mp-peering-1> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              . . .
              from <mp-peering-M> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              accept <mp-filter> [;]

   mp-export  [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              [afi <afi-list>]                              multi-valued
              to <mp-peering-1> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              . . .
              to <mp-peering-M> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              announce <mp-filter> [;]

   mp-default [afi <afi-list>] to <mp-peering>              optional,
              [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]          multi-valued
              [networks <mp-filter>]

   The mp-import and mp-export policies can be structured.  As with RFC
   2622 [1], structured policies are recommended only to advanced RPSL
   users.  The mp-import structured policy syntax is defined below.
   Please note the semicolon at the end of an <import-factor> is
   mandatory for structured policy expressions, while being optional on
   non-structured policy expressions.  The mp-export structured policy
   syntax is expressed symmetrically to the mp-import attribute.  The
   structured syntax allows exceptions and refinements to policies by
   use of the "except" and "refine" keywords.  Further, the exceptions
   and refinements may specify an optional "afi" list to restrict the
   policy expression to particular address families.

   Note that the definition allows subsequent or "cascading" refinements
   and exceptions.  RFC 2622 [1] incorrectly refers to these as "nested"
   expressions.  However, the syntax does not allow true nested

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   <import-factor> ::=
        from <mp-peering-1> [action <action-1>; ... <action-M>;]
        . . .
        from <mp-peering-N> [action <action-1>; ... <action-K>;]
        accept <mp-filter>;

   <import-term> :: = import-factor |
        . . .

   <import-expression> ::= <import-term> |
        <import-term> EXCEPT <afi-import-expression> |
        <import-term> REFINE <afi-import-expression>

   <afi-import-expression> ::= [afi <afi-list>] <import-expression>

   mp-import: [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]

2.5.1  <mp-peering>

   <mp-peering> indicates the AS (and the router if present) and is
   defined as follows:

   <mp-peering> ::= <as-expression> [<mp-router-expression-1>]
                    [at <mp-router-expression-2>] | <peering-set-name>

   where <as-expression> is an expression over AS numbers and AS sets
   using operators AND, OR, and EXCEPT, and <mp-router-expression> is an
   expression over router ipv4-addresses or ipv6-addresses, inet-rtr
   names, and rtr-set names using operators AND, OR, and EXCEPT.  The
   binary "EXCEPT" operator is the set subtraction operator and has the
   same precedence as the operator AND (it is semantically equivalent to
   "AND NOT" combination).  That is "(AS65001 OR AS65002) EXCEPT
   AS65002" equals "AS65001".

2.5.2  <mp-filter>

   The <mp-filter> policy filter expression is derived from the RPSL
   <filter> policy filter expression defined in section 5.4 of RFC 2622
   [1].  <mp-filter> extends the <filter> expression to allow the
   specification of IPv6 prefixes and prefix ranges.  In particular, an
   Address-Prefix Set expression in an <mp-filter> expression may
   include both IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes or prefix ranges.  <mp-filter> is

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   otherwise identical to the RPSL <filter> expression.  Address-Prefix
   Sets are enclosed in braces '{' and '}'.  The policy filter matches
   the set of routes whose destination address-prefix is in the set.
   For example:

      {, 2001:0DB8::/32 }
      { 2001:0DB8:0100::/48^+, 2001:0DB8:0200::/48^64 }

2.5.3  Policy examples

   The address family may be specified in subsequent refine or except
   policy expression's, and is valid only within the policy expression
   that contains it.

   Therefore in the example:

   aut-num:    AS65534
   mp-import: afi any.unicast from AS65001 accept as-foo;
                except afi any.unicast {
                  from AS65002 accept AS65226;
                } except afi ipv6.unicast {
                    from AS65003 accept {2001:0DB8::/32};

   the last "except" is evaluated only for the IPv6 unicast address
   family, while other import-expressions are evaluated for both the
   IPv6 and IPv4 unicast address families.

   The evaluation of a policy expression is done by evaluating all of
   its components.  Evaluation of peering-sets and filter-sets is
   constrained by the address family.  Such constraints may result in a
   "NOT ANY" <mp-filter> or invalid <mp-peering> depending on implicit
   or explicit definitions of the address family in the set.  Conflicts
   with explicit or implicit declarations are resolved at runtime, that
   is, during the evaluation of a policy expression.  An RPSL evaluation
   implementation may wish to issue a warning in the case of a "NOT ANY"
   <mp-filter>.  The following mp-import policy contains an example of
   an <mp-filter> that should be evaluated as "NOT ANY".

   aut-num: AS65002
   mp-import: afi ipv6.unicast from AS65001 accept {}

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

3.  route6 Class

   The route6 class is the IPv6 equivalent of the route class.  As with
   the route class, the class key for the route6 class is specified by
   the route6 and origin attribute pair.  Other than the route6
   attribute, the route6 class shares the same attribute names with the
   route class.  While the attribute names remain identical, the inject,
   components, exports-comps, holes, and mnt-routes attributes must
   specify IPv6 prefixes and addresses rather than IPv4 prefixes and
   addresses.  This requirement is reflected by the specification of
   <ipv6-router-expression>, <ipv6-filter>, and <ipv6-address-prefix>
   below.  <ipv6-address-prefix> has been previously defined.
   <ipv6-filter> is related to <mp-filter> as defined above in Section
   2.5.2 with the exception that only <ipv6-address-prefix> types are
   permitted.  Similarly, <ipv6-router-expression> is related to
   <mp-router-expression> as defined above in Section 2.5.1 with the
   exception that only <ipv6-address> types are permitted.

   Attribute     Value                             Type
   route6        <ipv6-address-prefix>             mandatory, class key,
   origin        <as-number>                       mandatory, class key,
   member-of     list of <route-set-name>          optional, multi-valued
   inject        [at <ipv6-router-expression>] ... optional, multi-valued
                 [action <action>]
                 [upon <condition>]
   components    [ATOMIC] [[<ipv6-filter>]         optional, single-valued
                 [protocol <protocol> <ipv6-filter> ...]]
   aggr-bndry    <as-expression>                   optional, single-valued
   aggr-mtd      inbound or outbound               optional, single-valued
   export-comps  <ipv6-filter>                     optional, single-valued
   holes         list of <ipv6-address-prefix>     optional, multi-valued
   mnt-lower     list of <mntner-name>             optional, multi-valued
   mnt-routes    list of <mntner-name>             optional, multi-valued
                 [{list of <ipv6-address-prefix-range>} or ANY]


   route6:   2001:0DB8::/32
   origin:   AS65001

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

4.  Updates to existing Classes to support the extensions

4.1  as-set Class

   The as-set class defines a set of Autonomous Systems (AS), specified
   either directly by listing them in the members attribute, or
   indirectly by referring to another as-sets or using the mbrs-by-ref
   facility.  More importantly, "In a context that expects a route set
   (e.g.  members attribute of the route-set class), [...] an as-set
   AS-X defines the set of routes that are originated by the ASes in
   AS-X.", (section 5.3 of  RFC 2622 [1]).

   The as-set class is therefore used to collect a set of route
   prefixes, which may be restricted to a specific address family.

   The existing as-set class does not need any modifications.  The
   evaluation of the class must be filtered to obtain prefixes belonging
   to a particular address family using the traditional filtering
   mechanism in use in Internet Routing Registry (IRR) systems today.

4.2  route-set Class

   This class is used to specify a set of route prefixes.

   A new attribute "mp-members:" is defined for this class.  This
   attributes allow the specification of IPv4 or IPv6

   Attribute   Value                                 Type
   mp-members  list of (<ipv4-address-prefix-range>  optional, multi-valued
               or <ipv6-address-prefix-range>
               or <route-set-name>
               or <route-set-name><range-operator>)


   route-set:  rs-foo
   mp-members: rs-bar
   mp-members: 2001:0DB8::/32  # v6 member
   mp-members:   # v4 member

4.3  filter-set Class

   The new "mp-filter:" attribute defines the set's policy filter.  A
   policy filter is a logical expression which when applied to a set of
   routes returns a subset of these routes.  The relevant parts of the
   updated filter-set class are shown below:

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   Attribute   Value                  Type
   filter-set  <object-name>          mandatory, single-valued, class key
   filter      <filter>               optional, single-valued
   mp-filter   <mp-filter>            optional, single-valued

   Where <mp-filter> is defined above in Section 2.5.2.  While the
   "filter:" and "mp-filter:" attributes are of type "optional", a
   filter-set must contain one of these two attributes.  Implementations
   should reject instances where both attributes are defined in an
   object as the interpretation of such a filter-set is undefined.

4.4  peering-set Class

   The peering set class is updated with a "mp-peering:" attribute.

   Attribute    Value                 Type
   peering-set  <object-name>         mandatory, single-valued, class key
   peering      <peering>             optional, multi-valued
   mp-peering   <mp-peering>          optional, multi-valued


   peering-set:   prng-ebgp-peers
   mp-peering:    AS65002 2001:0DB8::1 at 2001:0DB8::2

   With <mp-peering> defined as above in Section 2.5.1.  While the
   "peering:" and "mp-peering:" attributes are of type "optional", a
   peering-set must contain at least one of these two attributes.

4.5  inet-rtr Class

   Two new attributes are introduced to the inet-rtr class --
   "interface:" which allows the definition of generic interfaces,
   including the information previously contained in the "ifaddr:"
   attribute, as well as support for tunnel definitions.  And,
   "mp-peer:", which includes and extends the functionality of the
   existing "peer:" attribute.  The syntax definition for the
   "interface:" attribute follows.

   Attribute  Value                                 Type
   interface  <ipv4-address> or <ipv6-address>      optional, multi-valued
              masklen <mask>
              [action <action>]
              [tunnel <remote-endpoint-address>,<encapsulation>]

   The syntax allows native IPv4 and IPv6 interface definitions as well

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   as the definition of tunnels as virtual interfaces.  Without the
   optional tunnel definition, this attribute allows the same
   functionality as the "ifaddr:" attribute but extends it to allow IPv6

   In the case of the interface being a tunnel, the syntax is as

   <remote-endpoint-address> indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the
   remote endpoint of the tunnel.  The address family must match that of
   the local endpoint.  <encapsulation> denotes the encapsulation used
   in the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP} (note the outer and inner IP
   protocol versions can be deduced from the interface context -- for
   example, IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation is just IPinIP).  Routing
   policies for these routers should be described in the appropriate
   classes (e.g.  aut-num).

   The "mp-peer:" attribute is defined below.  The difference between
   this attribute and the "peer:" attribute is the inclusion of support
   for IPv6 addresses.

   Attribute  Value                                     Type
   mp-peer    <protocol> <ipv4-address> <options>  or   optional,
              <protocol> <ipv6-address> <options>  or   multi-valued
              <protocol> <inet-rtr-name> <options> or
              <protocol> <rtr-set-name> <options>  or
              <protocol> <peering-set-name> <options>

   where <protocol> is a protocol name, and <options> is a comma
   separated list of peering options for <protocol> as provided in the
   RPSL dictionary.

4.6  rtr-set Class

   The rtr-set class is extended with a new attribute, "mp-members:".
   This attribute extends the original "members:" attribute by allowing
   the specification of IPv6 addresses.  It is defined as follows

   Attribute   Value                             Type
   mp-members  list of (<inet-rtr-name> or       optional, multi-valued
               <rtr-set-name> or
               <ipv4-address> or

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

5.  RFC 2725 extensions

   RFC 2725 [2] introduces an authorization model to address the
   integrity of policy expressed in routing registries.  In particular,
   two new attributes were defined to support this authorization model,
   namely, the "mnt-routes" and "mnt-lower" attributes.

   In RPSLng, these attributes are extended to the route6 and inet6num
   (described below) classes.  Further, the syntax of the existing
   mnt-routes attribute is modified to allow the optional specification
   of IPv6 prefix range lists when present in inet6num, route6, and
   aut-num class objects.  This optional list of prefix ranges is a
   comma-separated list enclosed in curly braces.  In the aut-num class,
   the IPv6 prefix ranges may be mixed with IPv4 prefix ranges.  The
   keyword "ANY" may also be used instead of prefix ranges.  In the case
   of inet6num and route6 objects, "ANY" refers to all more specifics of
   the prefix in the class key field.  For the aut-num class, "ANY"
   literally means any prefix.  The default when no additional set items
   are specified is "ANY".  An abbreviated definition of the aut-num
   class with the updated syntax for the mnt-routes attribute is
   presented below.

   Attribute     Value                             Type
   aut-num       <as-number>                       mandatory, class key,
   mnt-routes    list of <mntner-name>             optional, multi-valued
                 [{list of (<ipv6-address-prefix-range> or
                            <ipv4-address-prefix-range>)} or ANY]

   The following is an example of mnt-routes usage.  This example
   authorizes MAINT-65001 to create route6 objects with an origin AS of
   65002 for IPv6 address prefixes within the 2001:0DB8::/32^+ range,
   and route objects with origin AS 65002 for IPv4 prefixes within the^+ range.

   aut-num: AS65002
   mnt-routes: MAINT-AS65001 {2001:0DB8::/32^+,^+}

   Note, the inclusion of IPv6 prefix ranges within a mnt-routes
   attribute in an aut-num object may conflict with existing
   implementations of RPSL which support only IPv4 prefix ranges.
   However, given the perceived lack of implementation of this optional
   prefix range list, it was considered acceptable to extend the
   existing definition of the mnt-routes attribute in the aut-num class
   rather than creating a new attribute type.

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   Attribute     Value                    Type
   inet6num      <ipv6-address-prefix>    mandatory, single-valued,
                                          class key
   netname       <netname>                mandatory, single-valued
   descr         <free-form>              mandatory, multi-valued
   country       <country-code>           mandatory, multi-valued
   admin-c       <nic-handle>             mandatory, multi-valued
   tech-c        <nic-handle>             mandatory, multi-valued
   remarks       <free-form>              optional, multi-valued
   notify        <email-address>          optional, multi-valued
   mnt-lower     list of <mntner-name>    optional, multi-valued
   mnt-routes    list of <mntner-name>    optional, multi-valued
                 [{list of <ipv6-address-prefix-range>} or ANY]
   mnt-by        list of <mntner-name>    mandatory, multi-valued
   changed       <email-address> <date>   mandatory, multi-valued
   source        <registry-name>          mandatory, single-valued

   The <country-code> must be a valid two-letter ISO 3166 country code
   identifier.  <netname> is a symbolic name for the specified IPv6
   address space.  It does not have a restriction on RPSL reserved
   prefixes.  These definitions are taken from the RIPE Database
   Reference Manual [4].

5.1  Authorization model for route6 Objects

   Deletion and update of a route6 object is not different from other
   objects, as defined in RFC 2725 [2].  Creation rules of a route6
   object is replicated here from the corresponding rules for route
   object in RFC 2725 [2] section 9.9.

   When adding a route6 object, the submission must satisfy two
   authentication criteria.  It must match the authentication specified
   in the aut-num object and the authentication specified in either a
   route6 object or if no applicable route6 object is found, then an
   inet6num object.

   An addition is submitted with an AS number and IPv6 prefix as its
   key.  If the aut-num object does not exist on a route6 to add, then
   the addition is rejected.  If the aut-num exists then the submission
   is checked against the applicable maintainers.  A search is then done
   for the prefix first looking for an exact match.  If the search for
   an exact match fails, a search is made for the longest prefix match
   that is less specific than the prefix specified.  If this search
   succeeds it will return one or more route6 objects.  The submission
   must match an applicable maintainer in at least one of these route6
   objects for the addition to succeed.  If the search for a route6
   object fails, then a search is performed for an inet6num object that
   exactly matches the prefix or for the most specific inet6num that is

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

   less specific than the route6 object submission.

   Having found the aut-num and either a list of route6 objects or an
   inet6num, the authorization is taken from these objects.  The
   applicable maintainer object is any referenced by the mnt-routes
   attributes.  If one or more mnt-routes attributes are present in an
   object, the mnt-by or mnt-lower attributes are not considered.  In
   the absence of a mnt-routes attribute in a given object, then first
   mnt-lower attributes are used (only in the case the given object is
   inet6num object and it is less specific than the route6 object to be
   added), and if no applicable mnt-lower attribute is found, then the
   mnt-by attributes are used for that object.  The authentication must
   match one of the authorization in each of the two objects.

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

6.  Security Considerations

   This document describes extensions to RFC 2622 [1] and RFC 2725 [2].
   The extensions address the limitations of the aforementioned
   documents with respect to IPv6 and multicast.  The extensions do not
   introduce any new security functionality or threats.

   While the extensions introduce no additional security threats, it
   should be noted that the original RFC 2622 [1] RPSL standard included
   several weak and/or vulnerable authentication mechanisms.  First, the
   "MAIL-FROM" scheme, which can be easily defeated via source email
   address spoofing.  Secondly, the "CRYPT-PW" scheme, which is subject
   to dictionary attacks and password sniffing if RPSL objects are
   submitted via unencrypted channels such as email.  And finally, the
   "NONE" mechanism, which offers no protection for objects.

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank all the people who have contributed to this
   document through numerous discussions.

   Particularly Ekaterina Petrusha for highly valuable discussions and
   suggestions.  Shane Kerr, Engin Gunduz, Mark Blanchet and David
   Kessens participated constructively in many discussions.  Finally,
   Cengiz Alaettinoglu who is still the reference in all things RPSL.

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

8.  References

8.1  Normative References

   [1]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
        Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D. and M. Terpstra, "Routing
        Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622, June 1999.

   [2]  Villamizar, C., Alaettinoglu, C., Meyer, D. and S. Murphy,
        "Routing Policy System Security", RFC 2725, December 1999.

   [3]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
        Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

8.2  Informative References

   [4]  Damas, J. and A. Robachevsky, "RIPE Database Reference Manual",
        August 2002.

Authors' Addresses

   Larry Blunk
   Merit Network


   Joao Damas
   Internet Software Consortium


   Florent Parent


   Andrei Robachevsky


Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                        July 2004

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Blunk, et al.           Expires January 21, 2005               [Page 19]