Skip to main content

Avoidance for ROA Containing Multiple IP Prefixes
draft-ietf-sidrops-roa-considerations-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (sidrops WG)
Authors Zhiwei Yan , Randy Bush , Guanggang Geng , Ties de Kock
Last updated 2022-08-09
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Keyur Patel
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to keyur@arrcus.com
draft-ietf-sidrops-roa-considerations-03
SIDR Operations                                                   Z. Yan
Internet-Draft                                                     CNNIC
Intended status: Informational                                   R. Bush
Expires: 10 February 2023                      Internet Initiative Japan
                                                               G.G. Geng
                                                        Jinan University
                                                              T. de Kock
                                                                RIPE NCC
                                                             August 2022

           Avoidance for ROA Containing Multiple IP Prefixes
                draft-ietf-sidrops-roa-considerations-03

Abstract

   In RPKI, the address space holder needs to issue an ROA object when
   authorizing one or more ASes to originate routes to IP prefix(es).
   During ROA issurance process, the address space holder may need to
   specify an origin AS for a list of IP prefixes.  Additionally, the
   address space holder is free to choose to put multiple prefixes into
   a single ROA or issue separate ROAs for each prefix according to the
   current specification.  This memo analyzes some operational problems
   which may arise from ROAs containing multiple IP prefixes and
   recommends avoiding placing multiple IP prefixes in one ROA.

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 2 February 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Yan, et al.             Expires 10 February 2023                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             ROA considerations                August 2022

   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Appendix A.  ROA Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   In Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), Route Origin
   Authorization (ROA) is a digitally signed object which identifies
   that a single AS has been authorized by the address space holder to
   originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address
   space[RFC6482].

   Each ROA contains an "asID" field and an "ipAddrBlocks" field.  The
   "asID" field contains one single AS number which is authorized to
   originate routes to the given IP address prefixes.  The
   "ipAddrBlocks" field contains one or more IP address prefixes to
   which the AS is authorized to originate the routes.  If the address
   space holder needs to authorize more than one ASes to advertise the
   same set of IP prefixes, the holder must issue multiple ROAs, one for
   each AS number.  However, at present there are no mandatory
   requirements describing that the address space holders must issue a
   separate ROA for each IP prefix or a ROA containing multiple IP
   Sprefixes.

Yan, et al.             Expires 10 February 2023                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             ROA considerations                August 2022

2.  Terminology

   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.

3.  Problem Statement

   For a Certification Authority (CA) issuing ROAs containing multiple
   IP prefixes, adding or deleting one <AS, IP_Prefix> pair causes the
   (single) ROA for an AS to be withdrawn and reissued.  All IP prefixes
   for an AS share the same validation state and then this may affect
   the stability and security of RPKI.

   By default, ROAs have an extended validity period.  Resource changes
   can happen at any time during this validity period.  A certificate
   change can affect all ROAs using IP prefixes from the issuing
   certificate.  CAs should carefully coordinate ROA updates with
   resource certificate updates.  A CA can automate this process if a
   single entity manages both the parent CA and the CA issuing the ROAs
   (scenario D [[RFC8211] section 3]).  However, in other deployment
   scenarios, this coordination becomes more complex.  Furthermore, for
   the ROA containing multiple IP prefixes, the IP prefixes share the
   same expiry configuration.  If the ROA is not reissued timely, the
   whole set of IP prefixes will be affected after expiry.

   Using multiple ROA objects with single IP prefix also allows a CA
   to affect routing over time based on certificate expiry.  For
   example, a prefix could be allowed to be originated from an AS only
   for a specific period of time, such as some IP prefix was leased out
   temporarily.

4.  Suggestions

   The following suggestions should be considered during the process of
   ROA issurance:

   1) It's the most important to guarantee the stability and security of
   RPKI, and it is recommended to include a single IP prefix in each ROA
   in default.

   2) In some special scenarios, where the resource is very stable or a
   CA has operational problems producing increased number of individual
   ROAs, multiple IP prefixes may be aggregated in one ROA.

Yan, et al.             Expires 10 February 2023                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             ROA considerations                August 2022

5.  Security Considerations

   This memo does not give rise to additional security risks.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not request any IANA action.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thanks the valuable comments made by
   members of sidrops WG and the list will be updated later.

   This work was supported by the Beijing Nova Program of Science and
   Technology under grant Z191100001119113.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

8.  References

8.1.  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>.

   [RFC6482]  Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
              Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8211]  Kent, S. and D. Ma, "Adverse Actions by a Certification
              Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource
              Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", RFC 8211,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8211, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8211>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.

Yan, et al.             Expires 10 February 2023                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             ROA considerations                August 2022

Appendix A.  ROA Analysis

   In order to illustrate the situations of the current ROA database,
   the following analysis is made.

    +-------------- -+----------------------+-------------------------+
    | The total      | The number of ROAs   | The number of ROAs with |
    | number of ROAs | with a single prefix | multiple prefixes       |
    +----------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
    | 117898         | 92742                | 25156                   |
    +----------------+----------------------+-------------------------+

                Figure 1: Statistical results of global ROAs

   As shown in Figure. 1, by July 20th 2022, the total number of ROA
   objects issued is about 117898.  Based on the further analysis on
   these ROA objects, it is found that the number of ROAs containing
   only one prefix is about 92742 (78.66% of all ROA objects), and the
   number of ROAs containing two or more prefixes is about 25156 (21.34%
   of all ROA objects).

   In the 25156 ROA objects which each one contains two or more
   prefixes, the number of IP address prefixes are calculated and
   analyzed.  The statistical results are shown in Figure. 2.

    +----------------+----------------+--------------------------------+
    | The number of  | The number of  | The median number of prefixes  |
    | prefixes       |  ROAs          |  in ROA                        |
    +----------------+----------------+--------------------------------+
    | 271822         | 25156          |  3                             |
    +----------------+----------------+--------------------------------+

      Figure 2: Statistical results of the ROAs with multiple prefixes

   As described in Figure. 2, there are 271822 IP address prefixes in
   the 25156 ROA objects.  And the median number of prefixes in ROA is
   3.  In addition, four types of ROAs are analyzed and calculated
   within the 25156 ROAs: ROAs each contains 2-10/11-50/51-100/>100 IP
   address prefixes.  The statistical results are presented in Figure.
   3.

Yan, et al.             Expires 10 February 2023                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             ROA considerations                August 2022

    +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------+
    | ROA      | ROA with | ROA with | ROA with | ROA with | Total |
    | types    | 2-10     | 11-50    | 51-100   | >100     | number|
    |          | prefixes | prefixes | prefixes | prefixes |       |
    +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------+
    | The      |  21461   |   3042   |    343   |    310   | 25156 |
    | number   |          |          |          |          |       |
    | of ROAs  |          |          |          |          |       |
    +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------+
    | The      | 85.31%   |  12.09%  |  1.36%   |  1.23%   | 100%  |
    | ratio of |          |          |          |          |       |
    | ROAs     |          |          |          |          |       |
    +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------+
    | The      |  78677   |  62156   |  23676   |  107313  |271822 |
    | number   |          |          |          |          |       |
    | of       |          |          |          |          |       |
    | prefixes |          |          |          |          |       |
    +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------+
    | The      | 28.94%   | 22.87%   |  8.71%   | 39.48%   | 100%  |
    | ratio of |          |          |          |          |       |
    | prefixes |          |          |          |          |       |
    +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-------+

            Figure 3: Statistical results of four types of ROAs

   As shown in Figure. 3, taking the first type of ROA as an example,
   there are 21461 ROAs (85.31% of the 25156 ROA objects) containing
   2-10 IP address prefixes, and the total number of IP prefixes in
   these 21461 ROAs is 78677 (28.94% of the 271822 prefixes).  It shows
   that the address space holders tend to issue each ROA object with
   multiple IP prefixes (more than 95% of ROAs containing 2-50
   prefixes).

   The longest and shortest validity periods of a single ROA is 28854
   days and 2 days.  In addition, the median validity period of ROA is
   429 days.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhiwei Yan
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing, 100190
   P.R. China
   Email: yanzhiwei@cnnic.cn

Yan, et al.             Expires 10 February 2023                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             ROA considerations                August 2022

   Randy Bush
   Internet Initiative Japan
   Email: randy@psg.com

   Guanggang Geng
   Jinan University
   No.601, West Huangpu Avenue
   Guangzhou
   510632
   China
   Email: gggeng@jnu.edu.cn

   Ties de Kock
   RIPE NCC
   Stationsplein 11
   Amsterdam
   Email: tdekock@ripe.net

Yan, et al.             Expires 10 February 2023                [Page 7]