Terminology and Use cases for Secured Routing Infrastructure
draft-richardson-nasr-terminology-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Richardson , Peter Chunchi Liu | ||
| Last updated | 2024-05-20 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-richardson-nasr-terminology-01
anima Working Group M. Richardson
Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track C. Liu
Expires: 21 November 2024 Huawei Technologies
20 May 2024
Terminology and Use cases for Secured Routing Infrastructure
draft-richardson-nasr-terminology-01
Abstract
This document collects terminology and use cases for Secured Routing.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-nasr-terminology/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the nasr Working Group
mailing list (mailto:nasr@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nasr/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nasr/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/mcr/nasr-terminology.
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 21 November 2024.
Richardson & Liu Expires 21 November 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft nasr-names May 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Reference Network Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
This document collects terminology in use for various secured routing
efforts.
In addition, it may collect use cases that explain the terminology.
This documents is not intended to ever be published.
2. Terminology
Although this document is not an IETF Standards Track publication, it
adopts the conventions for normative language to provide clarity of
instructions to the implementer. 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.
Richardson & Liu Expires 21 November 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft nasr-names May 2024
BGP Security: Mechanisms and operational strategies such as RPKI and
BGPSEC implemented to enhance the trustworthiness and robustness
of BGP operations, including route origin authentication, AS path
integrity validation and other approaches against prefix hijacking
and route leaks.
Routing Security: Achieving correct reachability within and across
networks by ensuring authentic and truthful distribution of
routing information.
Secure routing: Protect data security by ensuring data transits on
trusted devices, trusted operating environments or trusted
services.
Path Validation (BGP): an examination of control plane messages to
validate that the planned route is correct.
Proof of Transit: Secure and verifiable logs or evidence of a
packet's transit path in the data plane.
Path Validation (POT): a verification of proof-of-transit against
control plane information to validate if the packet was forwarded
according to control plane path.
Planned Route: unsure
BGP Security: (such as RPKI) concerns itself with the authenticity
of route announcements rather than the trustworthiness of the
network operating environment.
3. Reference Network Diagrams
The following network diagram will be used to explain many aspects of
the NASR problem statement.
Richardson & Liu Expires 21 November 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft nasr-names May 2024
.---------------------------. .-------------------------.
| ISP-A | | ISP-B |
| .------. | | .------. |
| .---------.| A-R3 |-------.| B-R9 |\ |
| | '--.---' | | '------' \ |
| | / | | | \ |
..| .------. / |..| | \ |..
. | | A-R1 | .-/----. | | .---.--. \ .------. | .
. | '-...--. | A-R2 |---------.| B-R8 | .| B-R6 | | .
. | | | '-.----' | | .------' '------| | .
. | | | | | | | | | | .
. | | |.------' .------.| | | | | | .
. | | || A-R4 |--. A-R5 |-----' | .------. | | .
. | | '------' '------'| | '-----.| B-R7 | | | .
. | | . | | '------' | | .
. '----|--------|-------------' '----------------|-----|--' .
. | | | | .
. .----. | | | .
. | C1 |------' '. | .
. '----' .----. | .
. | C2 |.-' .
. '----' .
. Country "S" .
..............................................................
In this diagram there are two ISPs, ISP-A and ISP-B.
Each ISP has a number of routers, uniquely numbered A-R1..A-R5, and
B-R6..B-R9. In the descriptions that follow the labels for each
router do not repeat the ISP number (A- and B-) when there is no
confusion.
The routers are connected together with a number of links. ISPs A
and B interconnected via A-R3<->B-R9, A-R2<->B-R8, and A-R5<->B-R8.
Routers R1,R2,R4,R5, and R6,R7,R8 are within a geographical region
labelled "Country S"
There are two terminal customers labelled C1 and C2. They could be
two locations of the same entity, or two entities that need assured
communications between them. The customer C1 has dual transit
connections to R1 and R4. The customer C2 has dual transit
connections to R6 and R7.
There a number of possible paths between C1 and C2, for instance:
1. C1,R1,R3,R9,R6,C2.
Richardson & Liu Expires 21 November 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft nasr-names May 2024
2. C1,R1,R3,R9,R8,C2.
3. C1,R1,R4,R2,R8,R7,C2
4. C1,R1,R4,R5,R8,R7,C2
5. C1,R4,R2,R8,R7,C2
6. C1,R4,R2,R3,R9,R8,C2
7. C1,R4,R2,R3,R9,R6,C2
8. C1,R4,R5,R8,R7,C2
9. C1,R4,R2,R3,R9,R6,C2
10. C1,R4,R2,R3,R9,R8,C2
Of these paths 2,6,7,9 and 10 go through routers R3 and R9, which are
not within the "Country S" geography.
The purpose of NASR is to provide control plane constraint on
acceptable paths between C1 and C2, and then to provide a Proof of
Transit that one of the acceptable paths was in fact used.
4. Use Cases
TBD
5. Security Considerations
Just words, no protocols in this document.
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests to IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
Hello.
8. Changelog
9. Normative References
[BCP14] 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/rfc/rfc8174>.
Richardson & Liu Expires 21 November 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft nasr-names May 2024
[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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc8174>.
Contributors
Meiling Chen
Authors' Addresses
Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Chunchi (Peter) Liu
Huawei Technologies
Email: liuchunchi@huawei.com
Richardson & Liu Expires 21 November 2024 [Page 6]