Internet Draft                                            L. Donnerhacke
Category: Proposed Standard                                     IKS GmbH
Expires: November 2008                                     W. Wijngaards
                                                              NLnet Labs
                                                             May 5, 2008

             DNSSEC protected routing announcements for BGP

Status of this Memo

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   This document describes an infrastructure for real time verification
   of routes reveived via BGP4.  Some DNS query types are introduced to
   check the origin of a prefix and validity of the AS path. The crypto
   part can be offloaded from the routing engine by sending a DNS query
   and checking the AD bit in the DNS response. The proposal depends on
   the DNS scalability and caching mechanisms as well as PKI introduced
   by DNSSEC.

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 1]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ..................................................  3
   2. DNS Mapping ...................................................  4
      2.1. The ASSET Resource Record ................................  4
         2.1.1. ASSET RDATA wire format .............................  4
         2.1.2. ASSET RDATA representation format ...................  6
         2.1.3. Fallback to TXT .....................................  6
      2.2. Prefix origin ............................................  7
      2.3. AS Peering ...............................................  7
      2.4. Delegation hierarchy .....................................  9
      2.5. Private numbers .......................................... 10
      2.6. Route and AS path aggregation ............................ 10
   3. Verification .................................................. 11
      3.1. Verification algorithm ................................... 11
      3.2. Offloading crypto ........................................ 12
      3.3. Zone slaving ............................................. 12
      3.4. Utilizing peer's cache ................................... 12
      3.5. Bootstrapping ............................................ 13
         3.5.1. Delaying verficiation ............................... 13
         3.5.2. Utilizing peer's resolver ........................... 13
   4. Related work .................................................. 15
   5. Test environment .............................................. 16
   6. Security Considerations ....................................... 17
   7. IANA Considerations ........................................... 17
   8. References .................................................... 17
      8.1. Normative References ..................................... 17
      8.2. Informal References ...................................... 18
   9. Changes history ............................................... 19
   10. Acknowledgements ............................................. 20

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 2]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008


   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   The process of checking an DNS record set to match the DNSSEC key
   hierarchy is called "validation" in this document.

   The process of checking an BGP route for origin and path consistency
   is called "verification" in this document.

   An unordered collection of Autonomous System (AS) numbers is called
   "AS number set" in this document.

   The DNS resource record representing an AS number set is called
   "ASSET" in this document.  "ASSET RR" means the whole DNS resource
   record, while "ASSET RDATA" names the payload section of the ASSET

   The AS-SET object in the Internet Routing Databases (IIRB) is called
   "AS database set" in this document.

   The aggregated AS number set stored in the BGP path information is
   called "aggregated AS path set" in this document.

1. Introduction

   BGP hijacking is a serious problem in the current internet.  In an
   ideal world those cases can't happen at all, because honest operators
   apply filters on their BGP4 [RFC4271] peerings in order to catch fat-
   fingered misconfigurations.  The filters can automatically derived
   from existing, well maintained routing databases.  A look at actual
   routing tables suffices for a reality check.

   This document proposes a real time verification method of received
   BGP announcements for routers: An efficient, automatic, and external
   filter.  The described infrastructure allows the filtering of bogus
   announcements even after some steps of transit.

   All the routing resource meta information is simplified and mapped
   into a DNS hierarchy.  The allocation and assignment chains for AS
   and IP numbers from the IANA via RIR and LIRs to the routing entities
   are reflected by the appropriate DNS delegation chain [iananum].

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 3]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   At the routing entity level (i.e. the ISP or customer) the delegated
   prefix is mapped to the AS number set, which injects the route into
   the DFZ.  Futhermore the peering state is modeled as a two way
   announcement at this level.

   Because of DNSSEC [RFC4033] all those delegations and announcements
   can be validated.  When querying, the router can do the DNSSEC vali-
   dation itself or delegate it to the next validating resolver.  A val-
   idated response contains a special bit (Authenticated Data) assuming
   the trustworthiness of the link between the resolver and the router.
   So the router can work with validated data without performing expen-
   sive cryptographic operations and difficult lookup algorithms.

   Some special issues arise from the interaction of building the rout-
   ing table while requiring a working interconnection for verification,
   and from verification and other operational errors.

2. DNS Mapping

   The mapping is designed to ease the route verification process.  All
   verification steps should be performed in a building a simple DNS
   query and looking for a single value in the validated DNS response
   set.  Furthermore the whole process should be easy to debug.

   A new zone BGP.ARPA is introduced to hold the routing resources.  For
   AS number mapping, the zone AS.BGP.ARPA is used.  IPv4 prefixes are
   mapped into IPV4.BGP.ARPA and IPv6 prefixes are mapped into

2.1. The ASSET Resource Record

   The ASSET RR contains a AS number set in a compact format.  ASSET RRs
   can be point to multiple other ASSET RRs.  Merging those referenced
   ASSET RRs allows to include AS database sets (in form of ASSET RRs)
   and to implement really huge AS number sets (as smaller ASSET RRs).

   The type value for the ASSET RR is TBD (decimal).

   The ASSET RR is defined for class IN.

2.1.1. ASSET RDATA wire format

   The ASSET RDATA is the concatenation of a single octet with subtype
   and name nibbles. The name nibble is bits 4-7, and indicates how many
   names will follow, zero or more names of referenced ASSET RRs.  After
   the names are zero or more number ranges up to the end of RDATA.  The
   subtype and name count are unsigned integers in network order.

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 4]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

                        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |subtype| #names|     domain name 0     ... domain name N       |
   |  number range 0              ...         number range M       |

   A sender MUST NOT use DNS name compression for the names.  This
   allows the ASSET RR to be handled by older software [RFC3597].

   An number range is encoded using an unsigned 16-bit base value in
   network byte order, a single octet range length which is an unsigned
   integer with the number of entries - 1 and up to 256 entries of
   16-bit offset values.  Each range encodes 32-bit AS numbers by com-
   bining the offset as lower 16-bit with the base as higher 16-bit.

                        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |   high 16-bit base value      | entry count-1 |  low 16-bit   |
   |  of AS number |    low 16-bit of AS number    |      ...      |

   Encoder software MAY reorder AS numbers for efficent encoding.
   Encoders MAY issue a warning, if the encoded RDATA exceeds 1000
   bytes. Encoders SHOULD reject the input, if the encoded RDATA exceeds
   3500 bytes. Encoders MUST reject the input, if the encoded RDATA
   exceeds 55 kbytes.

   The following values are defined for the subtype value:

   0  Union of the referenced ASSET RRs and embedded number ranges

      This ASSET RR corresponds to the union set of all AS number sets
      corresponding to the embedded number ranges and all the AS number
      sets corresponding to the named ASSET RRs recursively.  While pro-
      cessing ASSET references, the querier MUST provide loop protec-
      tion.  ASSET references are likely to become circular.  An ASSET
      RR with no reference names and no number ranges is allowed and
      corresponds to the empty set.

   1  Set of all possible AS numbers

      This ASSET RR provides a catch all for any possible AS number.  If
      this resource record is found while recursively processing subtype
      0 records, the whole recursion process can be aborted resulting in

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 5]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

      the largest possible AS number set.  This RR does not contain any
      referenced names nor any number ranges.  So the RDATA wire format
      of this subtype consists of the single octet "16" (decimal).

   2  Transition marker

      This ASSET RR is used while setting up the global infrastructure
      to mark "to be done" points.  Initially this RR has the same
      semantics as the subtype 1 RR.  In the medium term, the semantics
      of this RR will be changed to generate warnings or errors.  In the
      long term this RR will vanish.  This RR does not contain any ref-
      erenced names nor any number ranges.  So the RDATA wire format of
      this subtype consists of the single octet "32" (decimal).

   3-15  Reserved

2.1.2. ASSET RDATA representation format

   Subtype 0 resource records are represented by a space seperated
   sequence of domain names (of the referenced ASSETs) followed a space
   seperated sequence of AS numbers in the asdot format [as4byte].  Name
   representations without a trailing dot are abbrivated names in the
   current $ORIGIN of the zone file.  The first term matching the asdot
   format, i.e. consisting of digits and an optional single dot only,
   terminates the domain name sequence and starts the AS number

   Subtype 1 resource records are represented by the case insensitive
   term "any".

   Subtype 2 resource records are represented by the case insensitive
   term "transition".

   Ambigous domains names SHOULD not be abbrivated.

2.1.3. Fallback to TXT

   To ease deployment, ASSET RR can be implemented as TXT records, con-
   taining the representation format of the ASSET RR as RDATA.  This
   allows to provide DNS mapped data in the BGP.ARPA zone without run-
   ning ASSET aware DNSSEC tools or DNS servers.

   Routing devices MUST first query for and understand the ASSET RR.
   Only if the final response contains an authenticated denial of exis-
   tance (NSEC) record proving the existance of a TXT record for exactly
   the queried name, the routing device MUST ask for the TXT record.
   The TXT record is not queried for in other circumstances.  So a mini-
   mal amount of queries is sent.

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 6]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   This fallback procedure will be declared obsolete in the medium term.

2.2. Prefix origin

   To query the origin AS number set for a prefix, the prefix is trans-
   formed similar to reverse lookups and the DNS is queried for ASSET
   RRs.  The DNS response results in a (possibly empty) AS number set.

   IPv4 prefixes are queried in the same way as classless IN-ADDR.ARPA
   reverse delegation [RFC2317], but in IPV4.BGP.ARPA instead of IN-
   ADDR.ARPA.  The least specific label MUST contain the netmask of the

   IPv6 prefixes are queried in the same way as IP6.ARPA reverse delega-
   tion [RFC3596], but in IPV6.BGP.ARPA instead of IP6.ARPA.  If a dele-
   gated misses the nibble boundary, the same technique MUST be used as
   for IPv4.  The least specific label MUST contain the netmask of the

   Prefixes which MUST NOT appear in global routing tables do not get an
   entry in the delegation hierarchy.  I.e. IPV6.BGP.ARPA should not
   contain an entry for F.  For locally distributed prefixes, the local
   resolver SHOULD provide more specific zones and trust anchors for
   those prefixes.  This way exception handling in the routing devices
   is minimized: They simply ask for the data they have to verify.

   During rollout of this proposal, a transition period is necessary to
   allow the AS operators to set up the necessary zones and get the del-
   egations.  During the transition, the RIRs SHOULD derive the AS data
   from the [irdb] or MAY add the "transition" ASSET subtype for the
   allocated prefixes.

   Please note, that for multicast routing the destination addresses are
   not distributed via BGP4, but only the source addresses.  So the mul-
   ticast group addresses from and FF00::/8 are never looked
   up and will not be delegated in BGP.ARPA.

      $ORIGIN 192/20.17.217.IPV4.BGP.ARPA.
      @ ASSET 15725     ; CNAME delegation not necessary

      $ORIGIN 8.D.B.
      8/32 ASSET 15725  ; Delegation will have a CNAME for it

2.3. AS Peering

   Peering between two AS is fourfold: Sending and accepting on each
   site of a peering session.  Futhermore peering policies depend on the

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 7]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   address family of the prefix [RFC4012].

   To query the peering policy of AS A in regard to AS B, both AS num-
   bers are put together with the protocol and the peering direction,
   and the DNS is queried for ASSET records.  The DNS response results
   in a (possibly empty) AS number set.

   Local use of private AS numbers SHOULD be announced by adding spe-
   cific zones and trust anchors at the local resolver.  This way excep-
   tion handling in the routing devices is minimized: Routing devices
   handle private numbers in the same way as ordinary assigned AS num-

   During rollout of this proposal, a transition period is necessary to
   allow the AS operators to set up the necessary zones and get the del-
   egations.  During the transition, the RIRs SHOULD derive the AS data
   from the [irdb] or MAY insert the "transition" subtype of ASSET.

   To ease the delegation of AS numbers ranges to a RIR and in order to
   keep the zone size small for efficent DNSSEC operation, the combining
   of the two AS numbers for a peering from AS A to AS B is processed in
   the following way: The 32-bit AS number of A is written as <high
   order 16-bit value in decimal>.<low order 16-bit value in decimal as
   five dot seperated digits>, then the order of the labels is reversed,
   and AS.BGP.ARPA appended.  The resulting zone SHOULD be under the
   control of the AS operators.  The asdot format of AS B followed by
   the peering direction ("import" or "export") and the protocol family
   is prepended to this zone apex.

   Conversion example:
      AS15725 ->  0.15725 ->
      AS3.10  ->  3.00010 ->
      AS12.34 -> 12.00034 ->

   Peering information example:
      $ORIGIN multicast.ipv4.
      3.3.export ASSET 15725   ; AS15725 exports to AS3.3 only itself
      3.3.import ASSET 3.3     ; AS15725 imports from AS3.3 only 3.3
      15725.export ASSET ANY   ; AS15725 may prepend
      15725.import ASSET ANY   ; AS15725 may prepend

      $ORIGIN ipv4.
      5539.import.unicast ASSET ANY
      5539.export.unicast ASSET 3.3
      6695.import.unicast ASSET as-decix.
      6695.export.unicast ASSET 3.3
      15725.import.multicast ASSET 3.3
      15725.export.multicast ASSET ANY

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 8]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

      as-decix ASSET local as-hosteurope. ...
      local    ASSET 12510 12989 20899 25286 31334 31529 41039 42416

      as-hosteurope ASSET 20773

2.4. Delegation hierarchy

   Currently IPv4 addresses are allocated to the RIRs as /8.  The dele-
   gation at IPV4.BGP.ARPA follows this and delegate the zones to RIR's
   name servers.  This mimics the delegation from IANA to the RIRs in

   IPv4 addresses are allocated to the LIRs in various sizes.  Delega-
   tion of the allocate is done by the RIR in classless manner.  Futher-
   more the classless prefixes at this level up to the next classful
   boundary have to be delegated to the LIR, too.  The use of CNAME for
   classless delegations and DNAME for smaller prefixes is REQUIRED.

      $ORIGIN 17.217.IPV4.BGP.ARPA.
      192/20 NS
      $GENERATE 192-207/8 $/21 CNAME $/21.192/20
      $GENERATE 192-207/4 $/22 CNAME $/22.192/20
      $GENERATE 192-207/2 $/23 CNAME $/23.192/20
      $GENERATE 192-207/1 $/24 CNAME $/24.192/20
      $GENERATE 192-207   $    DNAME $.192/20

   If the AS operators announces the full allocate, the LIR adds the
   ASSET RR to the delegated zone.  If the AS operators deaggregate the
   allocate and/or permit assignments to be seperatly announced, the LIR
   adds further ASSET records or set up delegations to the AS operators.

   IPv6 address delegation mimics the delegation in IP6.ARPA.  Please
   note the similarity to IPv4 if an allocate or assignment miss the
   nibble boundary.  Futhermore the classless prefixes at this level up
   to the next classful boundary have to be delegated to the LIR, too.
   The use of CNAME for classless delegations and DNAME for smaller pre-
   fixes is REQUIRED.

      8/22 NS
      $GENERATE 8-15/2 ${0,0,x}/23 CNAME ${0,0,x}/23.8/22
      $GENERATE 8-15/1 ${0,0,x}/24 CNAME ${0,0,x}/24.8/22
      $GENERATE 8-15   ${0,0,x}    DNAME ${0,0,x}.8/22

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                 [Page 9]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   AS number allocations from IANA to the RIRs are done in large blocks.
   IANA has to delegate every zone for which the RIR might be responsi-
   ble, but not more.  Additional zones MAY be introduced using DNAME to
   delegate single AS numbers via RIRs, if the RIR can't maintain the
   LIRs data directly in the IANA zone (sometimes the IANA delegation
   can be directly to the LIR).

   RIRs assign single AS numbers to the LIRs and delegate the appropri-
   ate zone.

   AS database sets are a common tool in the Internet Routing Registy
   [irdb] and maintained by a AS operators.  AS operators SHOULD provide
   their common AS database sets of the routing registry directly as
   ASSET RR in their associated AS.BGP.ARPA zone.  Other AS operators
   are encouraged to refer to those ASSET records instead of generating
   the own ASSET RR using a database toolset.  Referencing provides much
   smaller zone files and "automatic" update of changes.  On the other
   hand generating the whole AS number set directly from the database
   provides a locally cached and therefore more stable version of the
   peering information.

2.5. Private numbers

   The delegation described in the previous section can't cover usage of
   private addresses or AS numbers.  Private numbers are not delegated,
   but only reserved by IANA.  Instead of officially marking reserved
   ranges to hand over the control to local router configuration, the
   reserved ranges are simply not delegated at all.

   If private addresses or numbers are in use, the DNS operators of this
   environment SHOULD set up local zones in BGP.ARPA, sign them and
   locally distribute the trust anchors.  This way the verification pro-
   cess for routers stays simple.  The zones SHOULD be shared between
   between involved AS to avoid duplication of configuration data.

   Configured local zones for private space MUST NOT be redistributed in
   the official BGP.ARPA tree.  DNS operators need to make sure, that
   those zones are not visible in unrelated AS.  The authoritive name
   servers serving local zones in BGP.ARPA SHOULD be kept seperate from
   the authoritive name servers visible to the public.  When using local
   zones in BGP.ARPA, the recursive, validating resolver used for router
   equipment SHOULD be kept seperate from the DNS resolvers for cus-

2.6. Route and AS path aggregation

   A not uncommon BGP setup is to aggregate several more specific routes
   to a larger prefix.  The aggregated prefix is injected into the

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 10]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   global routing table by the aggregating AS.  Optionally the AS path
   can contain a aggregated AS path set, in order to prevent the aggre-
   gated route to be propagated back.

   For the purpose of verifying the origin of a prefix, the whole aggre-
   gation process as well as the aggregated AS path set can be ignored.
   So aggregated AS path sets MUST be stripped from the AS path before
   verification.  The aggregating AS is considered as the origin of the
   aggregated prefix.

3. Verification

   A router receives routes in a given address family consisting of a
   prefix and a AS path via BGP4.  The router has to verify, if the
   incoming route is allowed or not.

   The router has to check the following criteria:
   -  is the originating AS allowed to inject the route?
   -  do all the AS in the path peer as claimed?
   -  does the recorded path fullfill the peering policies?

3.1. Verification algorithm

   To check the origin, the router queries for the prefix as described
   in 2.2.  If the last AS in the path, which is not part of an aggre-
   gated AS path set, is in the AS number set of the DNS response, the
   origin is verified.  If the prefix can't be found, the check fails.

   To check the peering policies, for each pair of sequenced AS in the
   path a query as described in 2.3. is performed.  Aggregated AS path
   sets are ignored.  The policy of the sending AS MUST contain all AS
   numbers of the path tail including the sending AS number for the
   address family and for the direction "export".  The policy of the
   receiving AS MUST contain all AS numbers of the path tail including
   the sending AS number for the address family and for the direction
   "import".  If an AS can't be found, the check fails.

   The router SHOULD NOT check the recursive peering policy for dupli-
   cate AS numbers, which are the result of prepending.  AS operators
   SHOULD add a self peering entry, if they use prepending.

   If all checks succeed, the route is accepted.

   If the check fails, the processing for this route MUST be delayed and
   retried.  This is necessary, because BGP4 does announce a route only
   once during a peering session.  If the problem with the DNS disap-
   pears, the route will not be reannounced in the BGP4 session, but
   MUST be accepted now.

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 11]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   Routers MAY record the TTL of the responses and assign the route the
   minimum of all TTLs to regularly reverify the route.  Routers MUST
   NOT drop the route solely because the TTL times out.

3.2. Offloading crypto

   Routers are not designed for DNS processing and should not do it.
   DNSSEC offers a validating resolver and a Authenticated Data bit in
   the response header.  Routers SHOULD ask a validating resolver and
   rely on the AD bit in the response [RFC4033].

   Using this approach, PKI processing, caching, and debugging is handed
   over to specialized software and admins.

3.3. Zone slaving

   Normally name servers of new AS can't be reached, because the new
   route to the prefix of the AS can't be verified until the route to
   the nameserver is active.

   That's why all zones in BGP.ARPA MUST have secondaries in other AS.
   The RIRs are urged to provide public secondaries for their LIRs and
   their routing customers.

   To avoid a net split after a hypothetical major outage, running sec-
   ondaries of other zones, especially of those of the peering AS, is
   RECOMMENDED.  Name server operators in BGP.ARPA SHOULD allow zone
   transfers to everyone [RFC1034].

3.4. Utilizing peer's cache

   Querying each record from the authoritive name servers for every
   recursive resolver would cause a storm of queries from the whole
   internet if a prefix is injected or flaps.  Such a query storm is
   similar to a DDoS and should be avoided.

   Any received prefix comes from a peer router which should have veri-
   fied the prefix before sending.  So the peer's router knows it's
   local resolver which in turn may have cached all the necessary data
   to validate the prefix.

   Routing devices SHOULD add the peer's router name as NS for BGP.ARPA
   in the authority section, and the peer's router address as A or AAAA
   for the router name to the additional section of it's own queries to
   it's own validating resolver.  The name for the NS and A/AAAA entry
   is not important, it only connects the NS RR and the A/AAAA RR.  The
   qname of the NS RR can be considered as the maximum scope of allowed
   DNS queries.

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 12]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   The resolver SHOULD ask the mentioned address first for all necessary
   recursive queries regarding this query.  It MUST NOT add the router
   address into the cache as a valid nameserver for the zone BGP.ARPA.
   If the peer's resolver denies access or is unreachable, the resolver
   MUST NOT query the peer's resolver for a reasonable time.  If the
   necessary data can not be obtained from the peer's resolver, the
   resolver MUST start the normal DNS resolving algorithm.  Sending DNS
   queries to a different host is a security risk, so resolvers SHOULD
   permit this redirection only for known sources (their own routers)
   and MAY limit this feature to zones under BGP.ARPA.

   The peer's router SHOULD forward the queries to it's local resolver.
   It is NOT RECOMMENDED for the router to provide this service for
   everyone, so the routing device SHOULD permit DNS forwarding only for
   sources of the peering AS and MAY use it's BGP routing table for this

   The peer's resolver SHOULD respond using it's cache data as a regular
   recursor providing forwarding service.  The resolver MUST take care
   not to serve information for private zones, this can also be accom-
   plished by having two resolvers, one for the router, one for outside

3.5. Bootstrapping

   There are two strategies to handle the startup of AS routing.

3.5.1. Delaying verficiation

   Routers SHOULD postphone all the checkings but accept all the routes
   as long as the routing table stays below to a configurable value.
   This behaviour allows a cold start after disasterous problems: The
   verification is postphoned until DNS becomes useable.

3.5.2. Utilizing peer's resolver

   While bootstrapping, foreign AS will need security information to
   accept routes originating from an AS.  This can be accomplished by
   putting master authority DNS servers for the AS AS.BGP.ARPA zone, the
   AS prefixes in IPV4.BGP.ARPA and IPV6.BGP.ARPA inside the AS and
   reachable by the forwarding resolver.  Far away AS can then query
   their neighboring routers, which will forward the query to their
   resolver, which will ask routers that are closer, and so on, towards
   the authority server.

   A resolver performing such router forwarding MUST be able get the
   address from its router for the resolver in a neighboring AS that is
   closer to a destination AS or prefix.  The router consults its

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 13]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   routing tables to determine the AS neighbor closer for a prefix.  For
   unrouted prefixes, the router has no answer, because it does not know
   a closer AS, or the resolver address for the closer AS.

   The router is queried for the neighboring resolver address with a
   query of type NEIGHBOR_NS, and name in AS.BGP.ARPA, IPV4.BGP.ARPA,
   IPV6.BGP.ARPA.  The reply contains an NS for BGP.ARPA and addresses
   for the remote server that handles forwarded router queries in the
   neighboring AS.  This NS MUST NOT be stored in the validator cache as
   a nameserver for BGP.ARPA.  Query RR type NEIGHBOR_NS has type code
   TBD3 (decimal).

   To be able to validate the DNSSEC chain of trust while the root,
   IANA, RIR and other servers are unreachable during bootstrapping, the
   DNSSEC chain of struct information MUST be stored.  The AS stores
   such information in CHAINOFTRUST RRs at the zone apex for its
   AS.BGP.ARPA, IPV4.BGP.ARPA and IPV6.BGP.ARPA zones.  The information
   was inserted at the last zone sign for the zone, so may be out of
   date regarding current information served by parent zones, but the
   information MUST be verifiable using the current trust anchors.

   The CHAINOFTRUST RR has type code TBD2 (decimal) and is class inde-
   pendent.  Its wire format consists of a 16-bit value type code and an
   uncompressed original domain name, and the remainder up to rdata
   length is the original rdata and presented in base64.  The RR type is
   used to wrap DNSSEC chain of trust data so that it can be stored at
   the authority servers of the AS without conflicting with data from
   other AS.  It is RFC3597 compliant.  The data can be copied from the
   parent authority servers verbatim.  The CHAINOFTRUST RRset must also
   be signed by the ZSK as usual.  An example:

      @ CHAINOFTRUST DNSKEY . <base64 data of RR>
        CHAINOFTRUST DS arpa. <data>
        CHAINOFTRUST RRSIG . <DS data>
        CHAINOFTRUST DNSKEY arpa. <data>
        CHAINOFTRUST RRSIG arpa. <DNSKEY data>
        CHAINOFTRUST DS <data>
        CHAINOFTRUST RRSIG arpa. <DS data>
        CHAINOFTRUST DS <data>
        CHAINOFTRUST DS <data>

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 14]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

        CHAINOFTRUST DS <data>

   The CHAINOFTRUST type can thus become fairly large, and will probably
   require TCP failover when queried for.  Storing a CHAINOFTRUST with
   original type CHAINOFSTRUCT can be used to refer a validator to more
   CHAINOFTRUST RRs which can be found at the name pointed to by the
   domain name stored.

4. Related work

   The idea is not new.  Directly after the specification of DNSSEC, the
   provided infrastructure was applied for verifying BGP announcements.
   Prefix originating verification was proposed by [bates] and discussed
   by [liauth].  AS mapping to DNS was proposed by [eastlake].

   [bates] prefered to define the new record type AS in order to keep
   the current semantics of TXT.  This proposal initially prefered TXT.

   Filling the testbed with real world data reveals AS database sets
   with more than 20000 AS numbers after deaggregation.  Using TXT
   records, the record set exceeds 100 kbyte and all limites for DNS
   packets.  Such record sets can't be retrieved.  Mr. Wijngaards devel-
   oped the ASSET type with bitfields and name chaining.  Following the
   responsibility principle, chaining was extended to multiple refer-

   Multiple encoding variants of ASSET where tried with real world data:
   Decimal encoding as TXT, binary encoding of 32-bit numbers, binary
   encoding if 16-bit numbers within a high 16-bit window, and NSEC like
   bitmaps within a 32-bit base window.  Bitmap encoding is more effi-
   cent if RDATA exceeds about 700 bytes. In all other cases the 16-bit
   encoding as described in 2.1.1 is more compact.

   [eastlake] define the AS mapping to DNS using the asplain notation
   combined with a length indicator of the significat digits.  With the
   introduction of four-byte AS numbers [RFC4893], IANA chooses to allo-
   cate a whole <high 16bit> to the a single RIR only, which suggests
   asdot usage.  Futhermore fixed sized formats are easier to handle in
   embedded devices.

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 15]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   The current proposal chooses to expand the <low 16bit> to five deci-
   mal digits and and append the whole <high 16bit> as a single decimal
   number.  This decision does only scale, as long as the number of
   allocated <high 16bit> keeps small.

   The alternate approach of coding the AS number in hex as in IP6.ARPA
   offers the possibility to follow the IANA allocation policy more
   closely (allocation step is 0x100).  Tests show, that currently 3455
   delegations based on decimal number vom IANA to RIRs are necessary,
   but only 3440 based on hexadecimal numbers.  Only if lookup would be
   done on binary numbers, the number of delegations would drop to 70.
   In order to ease debugging, this proposal chooses to stick on decimal

   The actual work of the SIDR WG focuses on automatic generation and
   validation of filters [sidrwg].  AS Path checks are not yet devel-

   [wijngaards] is very similar to the current proposal, so the results
   where merged.

   There are other proposals, i.e. a redesign of the BGP4 protocol to
   include cryptographic authentication of the path and origin [bar-

5. Test environment

   A testbed was build to test implementations and verify assumptions
   based on this recommendation.  The data in the testbed is derived on
   snapshots of the Internet Routing Registy [irdb] with focus of the
   RIPE region.

   The primary NS for the testbed of BGP.ARPA is IANA.BGP.IKS-JENA.DE.
   If you run secondaries, Lutz is happy to add them as name servers for
   the test zones.  If you like to get a delegation to maintain your own
   part in the testbed, please contact Lutz Donnerhacke.

   IANA and RIRs are especially encouraged to maintain their own area of
   responsibility.  This way the testbed would be more accurate and the
   communication channels between the participating parties could be

   To gain experience with DNSSEC signed domains up to the root, Lutz
   Donnerhacke runs a signed root [iksroot], which is expanded to cover
   the BGP.ARPA testbed.  You MUST NOT consider this environment as a
   permanent resource.  It will vanish as soon as the root gets signed

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 16]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

6. Security Considerations

   All zones in BGP.ARPA MUST be signed.  Local infrastructure between
   the routers and the validating recursive resolvers SHOULD be secured
   against data modification or spoofing attacks.

   Operational errors in DNSSEC or DNS handling will cause routing prob-
   lems.  Operational errors at RIR or IANA will cause larger shutdowns
   of global routing.  These errors may be mitigated if the CHAINOFTRUST
   types are queried, and contain data from before the error.

   Injecting or flapping routes may cause a storm of DNS queries from
   routers of the whole internet.  Such a request storm is similar to a
   DDoS attack.  Be prepared.  Have secondaries.  Don't flap.

7. IANA Considerations

   IANA should gracefully add the BGP.ARPA zone and maintain the delega-
   tions to the RIRs.

   IANA should sign the all the zones from the RIR delegation point down
   to the root.  IANA should maintain the resigning and key rollover
   procedures for those zones.

   IANA should set up a Delegate Signer (i.e. manual) update protocol
   for the delegation points to allow the RIRs to change their keys.

   IANA should maintain a registry of ASSET subtype numbers.  Those num-
   bers should be updated by IETF consensus.

   IANA should assign RR type codes for ASSET, CHAINOFTRUST and NEIGH-

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P, "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
              RfC 1034, November 1987

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC2119, March 1997

   [RFC2317]  Eidnes, H. and de Groot, G. and Vixie, P., "Classless IN-
              ADDR.ARPA delegation", RFC2317, March 1998

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 17]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S. and Huitema, C. and Ksinant, V. and Souissi,
              M., "DNS Extensions to support IP version 6", RFC 3596,
              October 2003

   [RFC3597]  Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
              (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003

   [RFC4012]  Blunk, L. and Damas, J. and Parent, F. and Robachevsky,
              A., "Routing Policy Specification Language next genera-
              tion", RFC4012, March 2005

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R. and Austein, R. and Larson, M. and Massey, D.
              and Rose, S., "DNS Security Introduction and Require-
              ments", RFC4033, March 2005

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y. and Li, T. and Hares, S., "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4", RFC 4271,  January 2006

   [RFC4893]  Vohra, Q. and Chen, E., "BGP Support for Four-octet AS
              Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007

   [as4byte]  Michaelson, G. and Hustone, G., "Canonical Text Represen-
              tation of Four-octet AS Numbers", Work in Progress: draft-
              michaelson-4byte-as-representation-05, December 2007

8.2. Informal References

   [bates]    Bates, T. and Bush, R. and Li, T. and Rekhter, Y., "DNS-
              based NLRI origin AS verification in BGP", Expired work in
              progress: draft-bates-bgp4-nlri-orig-verif-00, December

   [eastlake] Eastlake, D., "Mapping Autonomous Systems Number into the
              Domain Name System", Expired work in progress: draft-ietf-
              dnssec-as-map-05, July 1997

   [liauth]   Li, T., "Origin Authentication in BGP", Expired work in
              February 1998

   [irdb]     "The Internet Routing Registry: History and Purpose",

   [iananum]  "Number Resources",

   [sidrwg]   "Secure Inter-Domain Routing",

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 18]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   [rootsign] "IANA (DEMO) DNSSEC Status",

   [youtube]  RIPE NCC, "YouTube Hijacking: A RIPE NCC RIS case study",
              February 2008

   [bartels]  Bartels, O., "Requirements for a new routing protocol",
              Work in Progress: news:6msps3tgjug-
    , March 2008

   [wijngaards] Wijngaards, W., "Securing BGP using DNSSEC", unpub-
              lished, April 2008

   [iksroot]  Donnerhacke, L., "Instructions for a signed root",
    , December 2007

9. Changes history

   This section will not appear in the final document. It does provide
   some convenience hints what changed between the document version. It
   is not complete nor normative.

   Important differences from 02 to 03:
   - IP delegation requires always a netmask for propper delegation

   Important differences from 02 to 03:
   - Wouter Wijngaards added as author
   - ASSET RR added in favor of TXT RR
   - Peering direction and address familiy moved from RDATA to NAME.
   - DNAME for delegations are now REQUIRED instead of RECOMMENDED.
   - IRDB AS-Set mappings added
   - Bootstrapping seperated out as an extra section
   - Utilizing peer's cache section added
   - Testbed responsibility assigned to Lutz Donnerhacke
   - Added DDoS risks
   - Added subtype registry for IANA

   Important differences from 01 to 02:
   -  Removed reserved handling in favor to local served DNS zones.
   -  Added aggregate handling.

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 19]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

   Important differences from 00 to 01:
   -  Added handling of reserved address space using wildcards.
   -  Added handling of non routable address space using denial of exis-
   -  Added classification of multicast address space as non routable
   -  Added transition phase where information is copied from [irdb] or
      verification is explicitly turned off.
   -  Added recommendation to explicitly announce prepending as self
   -  Raised recheck of delayed verifications from SHOULD to MUST.
   -  Added a section about related work and reasons for design deci-

10. Acknowledgements

   The proposal was developed with the help of Gert Doering and Oliver
   Bartels in a USENET News discussion about the YouTube hijacking in
   February 2008 [youtube].

   Many thanks go to Tony Li for pointing out several historic docu-
   ments, and his invaluable comments on the transition phase, reserved
   areas, and readvertisement of received prefixes.

   Wouter Wijngaards independently developed a very similar proposal.
   Both proposals were merged.  Mr. Wijngaards does a wonderful job in
   developing the DNS related parts.

Authors' Addresses

   Lutz Donnerhacke
   IKS GmbH
   Leutragraben 1
   07743 Jena
   Phone: +49-3641-573561

   Wouter Wijngaards
   NLnet Labs
   Kruislaan 419
   Amsterdam  1098 VA
   The Netherlands
   Phone: +31-20-888-4551

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 20]

Internet Draft            DNSSEC protected BGP               May 5, 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.


   This document and the information contained herein are provided on

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in this document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.  Information on the procedures with respect to rights
   in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
   to implement this standard.  Please address the information to the
   IETF at

Donnerhacke               Expires November 2008                [Page 21]