Use Cases for Localized Versions of the RPKI
draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-06
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (sidrops WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2019-05-02 (latest revision 2019-04-30) | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | plain text pdf html bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Chris Morrow | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2019-01-03) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
Has 4 DISCUSSes. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved. |
||
| Responsible AD | Warren Kumari | ||
| Send notices to | Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | None | ||
Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan
Intended status: Informational April 30, 2019
Expires: November 1, 2019
Use Cases for Localized Versions of the RPKI
draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-06
Abstract
There are a number of critical circumstances where a localized
routing domain needs to augment or modify its view of the Global
RPKI. This document attempts to outline a few of them.
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 November 1, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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.
Bush Expires November 1, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-DraftUse Cases for Localized Versions of the RPKI April 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. What is 'Local' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Example Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Some Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Today RPKI-based Origin Validation, [RFC6811], relies on widespread
deployment of the Global Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI),
[RFC6480]. In the future, RPKI-based Path Validation, [RFC8205],
will be even more reliant on the Global RPKI.
But there are critical circumstances in which a local, clearly-
scoped, administrative and/or routing domain will want to augment
and/or modify their internal view of the Global RPKI.
This document attempts to lay out a few of those use cases. It is
not intended to be authoritative, complete, or to become a standard.
It is informative laying out a few critical examples to help frame
the issues.
2. Suggested Reading
It is assumed that the reader understands the RPKI, see [RFC6480],
the RPKI Repository Structure, see [RFC6481], Route Origin
Authorizations (ROAs), see [RFC6482], and GhostBusters Records, see
[RFC6493].
3. What is 'Local'
The RPKI is a distributed database containing certificates, CRLs,
manifests, ROAs, and GhostBusters Records as described in [RFC6481].
Policies and considerations for RPKI object generation and
maintenance are discussed elsewhere.
Like the DNS, the Global RPKI tries to present a single global view,
although only a loosely consistent view, depending on timing,
Bush Expires November 1, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-DraftUse Cases for Localized Versions of the RPKI April 2019
updating, fetching, etc. There is no 'fix' for this, it is not
broken, it is the nature of distributed data with distributed caches.
There are critical uses of the RPKI where a local administrative and/
or routing domain, e.g. an end-user site, a particular ISP or content
provider, an organization, a geo-political region, ... may wish to
have a specialized view of the RPKI.
For the purposes of this exploration, we refer to this localized view
Show full document text