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