Verification of AS_PATH Using the Resource Certificate Public Key Infrastructure and Autonomous System Provider Authorization
draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (sidrops WG)
Authors Alexander Azimov  , Eugene Bogomazov  , Randy Bush  , Keyur Patel  , Job Snijders 
Last updated 2021-02-22
Replaces draft-azimov-sidrops-aspa-verification
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          A. Azimov
Internet-Draft                                                    Yandex
Intended status: Standards Track                            E. Bogomazov
Expires: August 26, 2021                                     Qrator Labs
                                                                 R. Bush
                                      Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus
                                                                K. Patel
                                                            Arrcus, Inc.
                                                             J. Snijders
                                                                     NTT
                                                       February 22, 2021

   Verification of AS_PATH Using the Resource Certificate Public Key
      Infrastructure and Autonomous System Provider Authorization
                draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-07

Abstract

   This document defines the semantics of an Autonomous System Provider
   Authorization object in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to
   verify the AS_PATH attribute of routes advertised in the Border
   Gateway Protocol.

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.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2021.

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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.  Anomaly Propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Autonomous System Provider Authorization  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Customer-Provider Verification Procedure  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  AS_PATH Verification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Upstream Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Downstream Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Paths from Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  Mitigation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Disavowal of Provider Authorizaion  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Mutual Transit (Complex Relations)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Comparison to Peerlock  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) was designed without mechanisms to
   validate BGP attributes.  Two consequences are BGP Hijacks and BGP
   Route Leaks [RFC7908].  BGP extensions are able to partially solve
   these problems.  For example, ROA-based Origin Validation [RFC6483]
   can be used to detect and filter accidental mis-originations, and
   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy] or
   [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation] can be used to detect
   accidental route leaks.  While these upgrades to BGP are quite
   useful, they still rely on transitive BGP attributes, i.e. AS_PATH,
   that can be manipulated by attackers.

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

   BGPSec [RFC8205] was designed to solve the problem of AS_PATH
   validation.  Unfortunately, strict cryptographic validation brought
   expensive computational overhead for BGP routers.  BGPSec also proved
   vulnerable to downgrade attacks that nullify the benefits of AS_PATH
   signing.  As a result, to abuse the AS_PATH or any other signed
   transit attribute, an attacker merely needs to downgrade to 'old'
   BGP-4.

   An alternative approach was introduced with soBGP
   [I-D.white-sobgp-architecture].  Instead of strong cryptographic
   AS_PATH validation, it created an AS_PATH security function based on
   a shared database of AS adjacencies.  While such an approach has
   reasonable computational cost, the two side adjacencies don't provide
   a way to automate anomaly detection without high adoption rate - an
   attacker can easily create a one-way adjacency.  SO-BGP transported
   data about adjacencies in new additional BGP messages, which was
   recursively complex thus significantly increasing adoption complexity
   and risk.  In addition, the general goal to verify all AS_PATHs was
   not achievable given the indirect adjacencies at internet exchange
   points.

   Instead of checking AS_PATH correctness, this document focuses on
   solving real-world operational problems - automatic detection of
   malicious hijacks and route leaks.  To achieve this new AS_PATH
   verification procedures are defined to automatically detect invalid
   (malformed) AS_PATHs in announcements that are received from
   customers, peers, providers, RS and RS-clients.  This procedures uses
   a shared signed database of customer-to-provider relationships using
   a new RPKI object - Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA).
   This technique provides benefits for participants even during early
   and incremental adoption.

2.  Anomaly Propagation

   Both route leaks and hijacks have similar effects on ISP operations -
   they redirect traffic, resulting in increased latency, packet loss,
   or possible MiTM attacks.  But the level of risk depends
   significantly on the propagation of the anomalies.  For example, a
   hijack that is propagated only to customers may concentrate traffic
   in a particular ISP's customer cone; while if the anomaly is
   propagated through peers, upstreams, or reaches Tier-1 networks, thus
   distributing globally, traffic may be redirected at the level of
   entire countries and/or global providers.

   The ability to constrain propagation of BGP anomalies to upstreams
   and peers, without requiring support from the source of the anomaly
   (which is critical if source has malicious intent), should

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

   significantly improve the security of inter-domain routing and solve
   the majority of problems.

3.  Autonomous System Provider Authorization

   As described in [RFC6480], the RPKI is based on a hierarchy of
   resource certificates that are aligned to the Internet Number
   Resource allocation structure.  Resource certificates are X.509
   certificates that conform to the PKIX profile [RFC5280], and to the
   extensions for IP addresses and AS identifiers [RFC3779].  A resource
   certificate is a binding by an issuer of IP address blocks and
   Autonomous System (AS) numbers to the subject of a certificate,
   identified by the unique association of the subject's private key
   with the public key contained in the resource certificate.  The RPKI
   is structured so that each current resource certificate matches a
   current resource allocation or assignment.

   ASPA is digitally signed object that bind, for a selected AFI, a Set
   of Provider AS numbers to a Customer AS number (in terms of BGP
   announcements not business), and are signed by the holder of the
   Customer AS.  An ASPA attests that a Customer AS holder (CAS) has
   authorized Set of Provider ASes (SPAS) to propagate the Customer's
   IPv4/IPv6 announcements onward, e.g. to the Provider's upstream
   providers or peers.  The ASPA record profile is described in
   [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile].  For a selected Customer AS SHOULD
   exist only single ASPA object at any time.  In this document we will
   use ASPA(AS1, AFI, [AS2, ...]) as notation to represent ASPA object
   for AS1 in the selected AFI.

4.  Customer-Provider Verification Procedure

   This section describes an abstract procedure that checks that a pair
   of ASNs (AS1, AS2) is included in the set of signed ASPAs.  The
   semantics of its use is defined in next section.  The procedure takes
   (AS1, AS2, AFI) as input parameters and returns one of three results:
   "Valid", "Invalid" and "Unknown".

   A relying party (RP) must have access to a local cache of the
   complete set of cryptographically valid ASPAs when performing
   customer-provider verification procedure.

   1.  Retrieve all cryptographically valid ASPAs in a selected AFI with
       a customer value of AS1.  The union of SPAS forms the set of
       "Candidate Providers."

   2.  If the set of Candidate Providers is empty, then the procedure
       exits with an outcome of "Unknown."

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

   3.  If AS2 is included in the Candidate Providers, then the procedure
       exits with an outcome of "Valid."

   4.  Otherwise, the procedure exits with an outcome of "Invalid."

   Since an AS1 may have different set of providers in different AFI, it
   should also have different PCAS in corresponding ASPAs.  In this
   case, the output of this procedure with input (AS1, AS2, AFI) may
   have different output for different AFI values.

5.  AS_PATH Verification

   The AS_PATH attribute identifies the autonomous systems through which
   an UPDATE message has passed.  AS_PATH may contain two types of
   components: AS_SEQUENCEs and AS_SETs, as defined in [RFC4271].

   We will use index of AS_PATH segments, where Seg(0) stands for the
   segment of originating AS.  We will use Seg(I).value and Seg(I).type
   to represent Ith segment value and type respectively.

   The below procedures are applicable only for 32-bit AS number
   compatible BGP speakers.

5.1.  Upstream Paths

   When a route is received from a customer, a literal peer, or by a RS
   at an IX, each consecutive AS_SEQUENCE pair MUST be equal (prepend
   policy) or belong to customer-provider or mutual transit relationship
   (Section 7).  If there are other types of relationships, it means
   that the route was leaked or the AS_PATH attribute was malformed.
   The goal of the procedure described below is to check the correctness
   of this statement.

   The following Python function and algorithm describes the procedure
   that MUST be applied on routes with AFI received from a customer,
   peer or RS-client:

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

    def check_upflow_path(aspath, neighbor_as, afi):
        if len(aspath) == 0:
            return Invalid

        if aspath[-1].type == AS_SEQUENCE and aspath[-1].value != neighbor_as:
            return Invalid

        semi_state = Valid

        as1 = 0
        for segment in aspath:
            if segment.type != AS_SEQUENCE:
                as1 = 0
                semi_state = Unverifiable
            elif segment.type == AS_SEQUENCE:
                if not as1:
                    as1 = segment.value
                elif as1 == segment.value:
                    continue
                else:
                    pair_check = verify_pair(as1, segment.value, afi)
                    if pair_check == Invalid:
                        return Invalid
                    elif pair_check == Unknown and semi_state == Valid:
                        semi_state = pair_check
                    as1 = segment.value
        return semi_state

   1.  If the AS_PATH has zero length then procedure halts with the
       outcome "Invalid";

   2.  If the last segment in the AS_PATH has type AS_SEQUENCE and its
       value isn't equal to receiver's neighbor AS then procedure halts
       with the outcome "Invalid";

   3.  If there exists I such that Seg(I-1).type and Seg(I).type equal
       to AS_SEQUENCE, Seg(I-1).value != Seg(I).value and customer-
       provider verification procedure (Section 4) with parameters
       (Seg(I-1).value, Seg(I).value, AFI) returns "Invalid" then the
       procedure also halts with the outcome "Invalid";

   4.  If the AS_PATH has at least one AS_SET segment then procedure
       halts with the outcome "Unverifiable";

   5.  If there exists I such that Seg(I-1).type and Seg(I).type equal
       to AS_SEQUENCE, Seg(I-1).value != Seg(I).value and customer-
       provider verification procedure (Section 4) with parameters

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

       (Seg(I-1).value, Seg(I).value, AFI) returns "Unknown" then the
       procedure also halts with the outcome "Unknown";

   6.  Otherwise, the procedure halts with an outcome of "Valid".

5.2.  Downstream Paths

   When route is received from provider it may have both Upstream and
   Downstream fragments, where a Downstream follows an Upstream
   fragment.  If the path differs from this rule, e.g. the Downstream
   fragment is followed by Upstream fragment it means that the route was
   leaked or the AS_PATH attribute was malformed.  The first unequal
   pair of AS_SEQUENCE segments that has an "Invalid" outcome of the
   customer-provider verification procedure indicates the end of the
   Upstream fragment.  All subsequent reverse pairs of AS_SEQUENCE
   segments MUST be equal (prepend policy) or belong to a customer-
   provider or mutual transit relationship Section 7, thus can be also
   verified using ASPA objects.

   The following Python function and algorithm describe the procedure
   that MUST be applied on routes with AFI received from a provider:

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

    def check_downflow_path(aspath, neighbor_as, afi):
        if len(aspath) == 0:
            return Invalid

        if aspath[-1].type == AS_SEQUENCE and aspath[-1].value != neighbor_as:
            return Invalid
        else:
            semi_state = Valid

        as1 = 0
        upflow_fragment = True
        for segment in aspath:
            if segment.type != AS_SEQUENCE:
                as1 = 0
                semi_state = Unverifiable
            elif segment.type == AS_SEQUENCE:
                if not as1:
                    as1 = segment.value
                elif as1 == segment.value:
                    continue
                else:
                    if upflow_fragment:
                        pair_check = verify_pair(as1, segment.value, afi)
                        if pair_check == Invalid:
                            upflow_fragment = False
                        elif pair_check == Unknown and semi_state == Valid:
                            semi_state = Unknown
                    else:
                        pair_check = verify_pair(segment.value, as1, afi)
                        if pair_check == Invalid:
                            return Invalid
                        elif pair_check == Unknown and semi_state == Valid:
                            semi_state = pair_check
                    as1 = segment.value

        return semi_state

   1.  If the AS_PATH has zero length then procedure halts with the
       outcome "Invalid";

   2.  If a route is received from a provider and the last segment in
       the AS_PATH has type AS_SEQUENCE and its value isn't equal to
       receiver's neighbor AS, then the procedure halts with the outcome
       "Invalid";

   3.  Let's define I_MIN as the minimal index for which Seg(I-1).type
       and Seg(I).type equal to AS_SEQUENCE, its values aren't equal and
       the verification procedure for (Seg(I-1).value, Seg(I).value,

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

       AFI) returns "Invalid".  If I_MIN doesn't exist put the length of
       AS_PATH in I_MIN variable and jump to 5.

   4.  If there exists J > I_MIN such that both Seg(J-1).type,
       Seg(J).type equal to AS_SEQUENCE, Seg(J-1).value != Seg(J).value
       and the customer-provider verification procedure (Section 4)
       returns "Invalid" for (Seg(J).value, Seg(J-1).value, AFI), then
       the procedure halts with the outcome "Invalid";

   5.  If the AS_PATH has at least one AS_SET segment then procedure
       halts with the outcome "Unverifiable";

   6.  If there exists J > I_MIN such that both Seg(J-1).type,
       Seg(J).type equal to AS_SEQUENCE, Seg(J-1).value != Seg(J).value
       and the customer-provider verification procedure (Section 4)
       returns "Unknown" for (Seg(J).value, Seg(J-1).value, AFI), then
       the procedure halts with the outcome "Unknown";

   7.  If there exists I_MIN > J such that both Seg(J-1).type,
       Seg(J).type equal to AS_SEQUENCE, Seg(J-1).value != Seg(J).value
       and the customer-provider verification procedure (Section 4)
       returns "Unknown" for (Seg(J-1).value, Seg(J).value, AFI), then
       the procedure halts with the outcome "Unknown";

   8.  Otherwise, the procedure halts with an outcome of "Valid".

5.3.  Paths from Route Server

   A route received from a RS at IX has much in common with route
   received from a provider.  A valid route from RS contains Upflow
   fragment and MAY contain Downflow fragment that contains IX AS.  The
   ambiguity is created by transparent IXes that by default don't add
   their AS in the AS_PATH.  In this case, a route will have only Upflow
   segment, though even 'transparent' IXes may support control
   communities that give a way to explicitly add IX AS in the path.

   Routes from RS MAY be processed the same way as routes from
   Providers, but in the case of full IX 'transparency', it will limit
   the opportunity of IX members to detect and filter route leaks.  This
   document suggests using the presence of IX AS as a token to
   distinguish if Upflow or Downflow path verification procedure should
   be applied.

   The following Python function and algorithm describe the procedure
   that SHOULD be applied on routes with AFI received from a RS:

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

       def check_ix_path(aspath, neighbor_as, afi):
           if len(aspath) == 0:
               return Invalid

           if aspath[-1].value != neighbor_as:
               return check_upflow_path(aspath, aspath[-1].value, afi)
           else:
               return check_downflow_path(aspath, neighbor_as, afi)

   1.  If the AS_PATH has zero length then procedure halts with the
       outcome "Invalid";

   2.  If a route is received from a RS and the last segment in the
       AS_PATH isn't equal to receiver's neighbor AS, the result equals
       to the outcome of upflow verification procedure applied to
       AS_PATH with neighbor_as replaced with the value of the last
       AS_PATH segment Section 5.1;

   3.  If a route is received from a RS and the last segment in the
       AS_PATH is equal to receiver's neighbor AS, the result equals to
       the outcome of downflow verification procedure applied to AS_PATH
       Section 5.2;

5.4.  Mitigation

   If the output of the AS_PATH verification procedure is "Invalid" the
   route MUST be rejected.

   If the output of the AS_PATH verification procedure is 'Unverifiable'
   it means that AS_PATH can't be fully checked.  Such routes should be
   treated with caution and SHOULD be processed the same way as
   "Invalid" routes.  This policy goes with full correspondence to
   [I-D.kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set].

   The above AS_PATH verification procedure is able to check routes
   received from customer, peers, providers, RS, and RS-clients.  The
   ASPA mechanism combined with BGP Roles [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy]
   and ROA-based Origin Validation [RFC6483] can provide a fully
   automated solution to detect and filter hijacks and route leaks,
   including malicious ones.

6.  Disavowal of Provider Authorizaion

   An ASPA is a positive attestation that an AS holder has authorized
   its providers to redistribute received routes to the provider's
   providers and peers.  This does not preclude the provider ASes from
   redistribution to its other customers.  By creating an ASPA with
   providers set of [0], the customer indicates that no provider should

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

   further announce its routes.  Specifically, AS 0 is reserved to
   identify provider-free networks, Internet exchange meshes, etc.

   An ASPA(AS, AFI, [0]) is a statement by the customer AS that its
   routes should not be received by any relying party AS from any of its
   customers or peers.

   By convention, an ASPA(AS, AFI, [0]) should be the only ASPA issued
   by a given AS holder in the selected AFI; although this is not a
   strict requirement.  An AS 0 may coexist with other provider ASes in
   the same ASPA (or other ASPA records in the same AFI); though in such
   cases, the presence or absence of the provider AS 0 in ASPA does not
   alter the AS_PATH verification procedure.

7.  Mutual Transit (Complex Relations)

   There are peering relationships which can not be described as
   strictly simple peer-peer or customer-provider; e.g. when both
   parties are intentionally sending prefixes received from each other
   to their peers and/or upstreams.

   In this case, two corresponding records ASPA(AS1, AFI, [AS2, ...]),
   ASPA(AS2, AFI, [AS1, ...]) must be created by AS1 and AS2
   respectively.

8.  Comparison to Peerlock

   ASPA has much in common with [Peerlock].  Peerlock is a BGP
   Flexsealing [Flexsealing] protection mechanism commonly deployed by
   global-scale Internet carriers to protect other large-scale carriers.

   Peerlock, unfortunately, depends on a laborious manual process in
   which operators coordinate the distribution of unstructured Provider
   Authorizations through out-of-band means in a many-to-many fashion.
   On the other hand, ASPA's use of PKIX [RFC5280] allows for automated,
   scalable, and ubiquitous deployment, making the protection mechanism
   available to a wider range of Internet Number Resource holders.

   ASPA mechanics implemented in code instead of Peerlock AS_PATH
   regular expressions also provides a way to detect anomalies coming
   from transit providers and internet exchange route servers.

   ASPA is intended to be a complete solution and replacement for
   existing Peerlock deployments.

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

9.  Security Considerations

   The proposed mechanism is compatible only with BGP implementations
   that can process 32-bit ASNs in the AS_PATH.  This limitation should
   not have a real effect on operations - such legacy BGP routers are
   rare and it's highly unlikely that they support integration with the
   RPKI.

   ASPA issuers should be aware of the verification implication in
   issuing an ASPA - an ASPA implicitly invalidates all routes passed to
   upstream providers other than the provider ASs listed in the ASPA
   record.  It is the Customer AS's duty to maintain a correct set of
   providers in ASPA record(s).

   While it's not restricted, but it's highly recommended maintaining
   for selected Customer AS a single ASPA object that covers all its
   providers.  Such policy should prevent race conditions during ASPA
   updates that might affect prefix propagation.  The software that
   provides hosting for ASPA records SHOULD support enforcement of this
   rule.  In the case of the transition process between different CA
   registries, the ASPA records SHOULD be kept identical in all
   registries.

   While the ASPA is able to detect both mistakes and malicious activity
   for routes received from customers, RS-clients, or peers, it provides
   only detection of mistakes for routes that are received from upstream
   providers and RS(s).

   Since an upstream provider becomes a trusted point, it will be able
   to send hijacked prefixes of its customers or send hijacked prefixes
   with malformed AS_PATHs back.  While it may happen in theory, it's
   doesn't seem to be a real scenario: normally customer and provider
   have a signed agreement and such policy violation should have legal
   consequences or customer can just drop relation with such a provider
   and remove the corresponding ASPA record.

10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank authors of [RFC6483] since its text was
   used as an example while writing this document.  The also authors
   wish to thank Iljitsch van Beijnum for giving a hint about Downstream
   paths.

11.  References

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

11.1.  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>.

   [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>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [Flexsealing]
              McDaniel, T., Smith, J., and M. Schuchard, "Flexsealing
              BGP Against Route Leaks: Peerlock Active Measurement and
              Analysis", November 2020,
              <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.06576.pdf>.

   [I-D.ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation]
              Sriram, K. and A. Azimov, "Methods for Detection and
              Mitigation of BGP Route Leaks", draft-ietf-grow-route-
              leak-detection-mitigation-00 (work in progress), April
              2019.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy]
              Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., and K.
              Sriram, "Route Leak Prevention using Roles in Update and
              Open messages", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-05 (work in
              progress), February 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile]
              Azimov, A., Uskov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., Snijders, J.,
              and R. Housley, "A Profile for Autonomous System Provider
              Authorization", draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-00 (work
              in progress), May 2019.

   [I-D.kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set]
              Kumari, W. and K. Sriram, "Deprecation of AS_SET and
              AS_CONFED_SET in BGP", draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-
              confed-set-12 (work in progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.white-sobgp-architecture]
              White, R., "Architecture and Deployment Considerations for
              Secure Origin BGP (soBGP)", draft-white-sobgp-
              architecture-02 (work in progress), June 2006.

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

   [Peerlock]
              Snijders, J., "Peerlock", June 2016,
              <https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/
              Snijders_Everyday_Practical_Bgp.pdf>.

   [RFC3779]  Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
              Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3779, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3779>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6483]  Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Validation of Route
              Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key
              Infrastructure (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations
              (ROAs)", RFC 6483, DOI 10.17487/RFC6483, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6483>.

   [RFC7908]  Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., McPherson, D., Osterweil, E.,
              and B. Dickson, "Problem Definition and Classification of
              BGP Route Leaks", RFC 7908, DOI 10.17487/RFC7908, June
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7908>.

   [RFC8205]  Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol
              Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.

Authors' Addresses

   Alexander Azimov
   Yandex

   Email: a.e.azimov@gmail.com

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            AS_PATH Verification             February 2021

   Eugene Bogomazov
   Qrator Labs

   Email: eb@qrator.net

   Randy Bush
   Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus

   Email: randy@psg.com

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus, Inc.

   Email: keyur@arrcus.com

   Job Snijders
   NTT Communications
   Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
   Amsterdam  1065 SZ
   The Netherlands

   Email: job@ntt.net

Azimov, et al.           Expires August 26, 2021               [Page 15]