Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft IIJ & Arrcus
Intended status: Standards Track M. Candela
Expires: October 15, 2021 NTT
W. Kumari
Google
R. Housley
Vigil Security
April 13, 2021
Finding and Using Geofeed Data
draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-05
Abstract
This document describes how to find and authenticate geofeed data.
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 October 15, 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
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Geofeed Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. inetnum: Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Authenticating Geofeed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Providers of Internet content and other services may wish to
customize those services based on the geographic location of the user
of the service. This is often done using the source IP address used
to contact the service. Also, infrastructure and other services
might wish to publish the locale of their services. [RFC8805]
defines geofeed, a syntax to associate geographic locales with IP
addresses. But it does not specify how to find the relevant geofeed
data given an IP address.
This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy
Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC4012] inetnum: class to refer
specifically to geofeed data CSV files, and how to prudently use
them. In all places inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be
assumed [RFC4012].
The reader may find [INETNUM] and [INET6NUM] informative, and
certainly more verbose, descriptions of the inetnum: database
classes.
An optional, utterly awesome but slightly complex, means for
authenticating geofeed data is also defined.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
1.1. 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.
2. Geofeed Files
Geofeed files are described in [RFC8805]. They provide a facility
for an IP address resource 'owner' to associate those IP addresses to
geographic locale(s).
Content providers and other parties who wish to locate an IP address
to a geographic locale need to find the relevant geofeed data. In
Section 3 this document specifies how to find the relevant [RFC8805]
geofeed file given an IP address.
Geofeed data for large providers with significant horizontal scale
and high granularity can be quite large. The size of a file can be
even larger if an unsigned geofeed file combines data for many
prefixes, dual IPv4/IPv6 spaces are represented, etc.
[RFC8805] geofeed data may reveal the approximate location of an IP
address, which might in turn reveal the approximate location of an
individual user. Unfortunately, [RFC8805] provides no privacy
guidance on avoiding or ameliorating possible damage due to this
exposure of the user. In publishing pointers to geofeed files as
described in this document the operator should be aware of this
exposure in geofeed data and be cautious. All the privacy
considerations of [RFC8805] Section 4 apply to this document.
This document also suggests optional signature, which authenticates
the data when present, for geofeed files to provide stronger
authenticity to the data.
3. inetnum: Class
The Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL), [RFC4012] used by
the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) specifies inetnum: database
classs. Each of these objects describes an IP address range and its
attributes. The inetnum: objects form a hierarchy ordered on the
address space.
Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed:
attribute in the inetnum: class. Until such time, this document
defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains an
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
HTTPS URL of a geofeed file. The format of the inetnum: geofeed
attribute MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed" followed by
a URL which will vary, but MUST refer only to a single [RFC8805]
geofeed file.
inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed.csv
While we leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant
parties, we specify that a proper geofeed: attribute in the inetnum:
class be simply "geofeed: " followed by a URL which will vary, but
MUST refer only to a [RFC8805] geofeed file.
inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed.csv
Until all producers of inetnum:s, i.e. the RIRs, state that they have
migrated to supporting a geofeed: attribute, consumers looking at
inetnum:s to find geofeed URLs MUST be able to consume both the
remarks: and geofeed: forms. This not only implies that the RIRs
support the geofeed: attribute, but that all registrants have
migrated any inetnum:s from remarks: use to geofeed:s.
Any particular inetnum: object MUST have at most, one geofeed
reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it
is implemented. If there is more than one, all are ignored.
If a geofeed CSV file describes multiple disjoint ranges of IP
address space, there are likely to be geofeed references from
multiple inetnum: objects.
As inetnum: objects form a hierarchy, Geofeed references SHOULD be at
the lowest applicable inetnum: object covering the relevant prefixes
in the referenced geofeed file. When fetching, the most specific
inetnum: object with a geofeed reference MUST be used.
When geofeed references are provided by multiple inetnum: objects
which have identical address ranges, then the geofeed reference on
the inetnum: with the most recent last-modified: attribute SHOULD be
preferred.
It is significant that geofeed data may have finer granularity than
the inetnum: which refers to them. I.e. an INETNUM object for a
prefix P could refer to a geofeed file in which P has been sub-
divided into one or more longer prefixes.
Currently, the registry data published by ARIN is not the same RPSL
as the other registries; therefore, when fetching from ARIN via FTP
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
[RFC0959], whois [RFC3912], RDAP [RFC7482], or whatever, the
"NetRange" attribute/key MUST be treated as "inetnum" and the
"Comment" attribute MUST be treated as "remarks".
4. Authenticating Geofeed Data
The question arises of whether a particular [RFC8805] geofeed data
set is valid, i.e. authorized by the 'owner' of the IP address space
and is authoritative in some sense. The inetnum: which points to the
[RFC8805] geofeed file provides some assurance. Unfortunately the
RPSL in many repositories is weakly authenticated at best. An
approach where RPSL was signed a la [RFC7909] would be good, except
it would have to be deployed by all RPSL registries, and there is a
fair number of them.
An optional authenticator MAY be appended to a [RFC8805] geofeed
file. It is a digest of the main body of the file signed by the
private key of the relevant Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI,
see [RFC6481]) certificate for the covering address range. One needs
a format that bundles the relevant RPKI certificate with the
signature and the digest of the geofeed text.
The canonicalization procedure converts the data from its internal
character representation to the UTF-8 [RFC3629] character encoding,
and the <CRLF> sequence MUST be used to denote the end of a line of
text. Trailing space characters MUST NOT appear on a line of text.
That is, the space or tab characters must not be followed by the
<CRLF> sequence. Thus, a blank line is represented solely by the
<CRLF> sequence. Other nonprintable characters, such as backspace,
are not expected. For robustness, any nonprintable characters MUST
NOT be changed by canonicalization. Trailing blank lines MUST NOT
appear at the end of the file. That is, the file must not end with
multiple consecutive <CRLF> sequences. Any end-of-file marker used
by an operating system is not considered to be part of the file
content. When present, such end-of-file markers MUST NOT be
processed by the digital signature algorithm. Borrowing detached
signatures from [RFC5485], after file canonicalization, the
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] would be used to create
a detached DER encoded signature which is then BASE64 encoded and
line wrapped to 72 or fewer characters.
The address range of the signing certificate MUST cover all prefixes
in the geofeed file it signs; and therefore must be covered by the
range of the inetnum:.
An address range A 'covers' address range B if the range of B is
identical to or a subset of A. 'Address range' is used here because
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
inetnum: objects and RPKI certificates need not align on CIDR prefix
boundaries, while those of the CSV lines in the geofeed file do.
As the signer specifies the covered RPKI resources relevant to the
signature, the RPKI certificate covering the inetnum: object's
address range is included in the [RFC5652] CMS SignedData
certificates field.
Identifying the private key associated with the certificate, and
getting the department with the Hardware Security Module (HSM) to
sign the CMS blob is left as an exercise for the implementor. On the
other hand, verifying the signature requires no complexity; the
certificate, which can be validated in the public RPKI, has the
needed public key.
Unless [RFC8805] is modified to formally define such an appendix, it
MUST be 'hidden' as a series of "#" comments at the end of the
geofeed file. The following is a cryptographically incorrect, albeit
simple example. A correct and full example is in Appendix A.
# RPKI Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
# MIIGlwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIGiDCCBoQCAQMxDTALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwDQYLKoZ
# IhvcNAQkQAS+gggSxMIIErTCCA5WgAwIBAgIUJ605QIPX8rW5m4Zwx3WyuW7hZu
...
# imwYkXpiMxw44EZqDjl36MiWsRDLdgoijBBcGbibwyAfGeR46k5raZCGvxG+4xa
# O8PDTxTfIYwAnBjRBKAqAZ7yX5xHfm58jUXsZJ7Ileq1S7G6Kk=
# End Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
The signature does not cover the signature lines.
[I-D.spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc] describes and provides code for a
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) profile for a general purpose
listing of checksums (a 'checklist'), for use with the Resource
Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). It provides usable, albeit
complex, code to sign geofeed files.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta] describes a Cryptographic Message Syntax
(CMS) profile for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA)
based on the RPKI. While this is expected to become applicable in
the long run, for the purposes of this document, a self-signed root
trust anchor is used.
5. Operational Considerations
To create the needed inetnum: objects, an operator wishing to
register the location of their geofeed file needs to coordinate with
their RIR/NIR and/or any provider LIR which has assigned prefixes to
them. RIRs/NIRs provide means for assignees to create and maintain
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
inetnum: objects. They also provide means of [sub-]assigning IP
address resources and allowing the assignee to create whois data,
including inetnum: objects, and thereby referring to geofeed files.
The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched using https
[RFC8446].
When using data from a geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside of
the referring inetnum: object's inetnum: attribute address range.
If and only if the geofeed file is not signed per Section 4, then
multiple inetnum: objects MAY refer to the same geofeed file, and the
consumer MUST use only geofeed lines where the prefix is covered by
the address range of the inetnum: object they have followed.
To minimize the load on RIR whois [RFC3912] services, use of the
RIR's FTP [RFC0959] services SHOULD be the preferred access. This
also provides bulk access instead of fetching with tweezers.
Currently, geolocation providers have bulk whois data access at all
the RIRs. An anonymized version of such data is openly available for
all RIRs except ARIN, which requires an authorization. However, for
users without such authorization the same result can be achieved with
extra RDAP effort. There is open source code to pass over such data
across all RIRs, collect all geofeed references, and process them
[geofeed-finder].
An entity fetching geofeed data using these mechanisms MUST NOT do
frequent real-time look-ups to prevent load on RPSL and geofeed
servers. [RFC8805] Section 3.4 suggests use of the [RFC7234] HTTP
Expires Caching Header to signal when geofeed data should be
refetched. As the data change very infrequently, in the absence of
such an HTTP Header signal, collectors MUST NOT fetch more frequently
than weekly. It would be polite not to fetch at magic times such as
midnight UTC, the first of the month, etc., because too many others
are likely to do the same.
6. Security Considerations
It is generally prudent for a consumer of geofeed data to also use
other sources to cross-validate the data. All of the Security
Considerations of [RFC8805] apply here as well.
As mentioned in Section 4, many RPSL repositories have weak if any
authentication. This allows spoofing of inetnum: objects pointing to
malicious geofeed files. Section 4 suggests an unfortunately complex
method for stronger authentication based on the RPKI.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
If an inetnum: for a wide prefix (e.g. a /16) points to an RPKI-
signed geofeed file, a customer or attacker could publish an unsigned
equal or narrower (e.g. a /24) inetnum: in a whois registry which has
weak authorization.
The RPSL providers have had to throttle fetching from their servers
due to too-frequent queries. Usually they throttle by the querying
IP address or block. Similar defenses will likely need to be
deployed by geofeed file servers.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to register object identifiers for one content type in
the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type
(1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)" registry as follows:
Description OID Specification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.47 [RFC-TBD]
8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Rob Austein for CMS and detached signature clue. George
Michaelson for the first, and a substantial, external review. Erik
Kline who was too shy to agree to co-authorship. Additionally, we
express our gratitude to early implementors, including Menno
Schepers, Flavio Luciani, Eric Dugas, Job Snijders who provided
running code, and Kevin Pack. Also to geolocation providers that are
consuming geofeeds with this described solution, Jonathan Kosgei
(ipdata.co), Ben Dowling (ipinfo.io), and Pol Nisenblat
(bigdatacloud.com). For reviews, we thank Adrian Farrel, Antonio
Prado, Rob Wilton, and George Michaelson, the document shepherd.
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
[RFC4012] Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky,
"Routing Policy Specification Language next generation
(RPSLng)", RFC 4012, DOI 10.17487/RFC4012, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4012>.
[RFC5485] Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft
Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
[RFC6481] Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6481, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6481>.
[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>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8805] Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W.
Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation
Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8805>.
9.2. Informative References
[geofeed-finder]
Massimo Candela, "geofeed-finder",
<https://github.com/massimocandela/geofeed-finder>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
Michaelson, G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels, T.,
and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
Attestations (RTAs)", draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00 (work
in progress), January 2021.
[I-D.spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc]
Snijders, J., "RPKI Signed Checklists", draft-spaghetti-
sidrops-rpki-rsc-03 (work in progress), February 2021.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
[INET6NUM]
RIPE, "Description of the INET6NUM Object",
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
objects/4-2-3-description-of-the-inet6num-object>.
[INETNUM] RIPE, "Description of the INETNUM Object",
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
objects/4-2-4-description-of-the-inetnum-object>.
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, October 1985,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc959>.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[RFC7909] Kisteleki, R. and B. Haberman, "Securing Routing Policy
Specification Language (RPSL) Objects with Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Signatures", RFC 7909,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7909, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7909>.
Appendix A. Example
This appendix provides an example, including a trust anchor, a CA
certificate subordinate to the trust anchor, an end-entity
certificate subordinate to the CA for signing the geofeed, and a
detached signature.
The trust anchor is represented by a self-signed certificate. As
usual in the RPKI, the trust anchor has authority over all IPv4
address blocks, all IPv6 address blocks, and all AS numbers.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
MIIEPjCCAyagAwIBAgIUPsUFJ4e/7pKZ6E14aBdkbYzms1gwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEL
BQAwFTETMBEGA1UEAxMKZXhhbXBsZS10YTAeFw0yMDA5MDMxODU0NTRaFw0zMDA5
MDExODU0NTRaMBUxEzARBgNVBAMTCmV4YW1wbGUtdGEwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB
AQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCelMmMDCGBhqn/a3VrNAoKMr1HVLKxGoG7VF/13HZJ
0twObUZlh3Jz+XeD+kNAURhELWTrsgdTkQQfqinqOuRemxTl55+x7nLpe5nmwaBH
XqqDOHubmkbAGanGcm6T/rD9KNk1Z46Uc2p7UYu0fwNO0mo0aqFL2FSyvzZwziNe
g7ELYZ4a3LvGn81JfP/JvM6pgtoMNuee5RV6TWaz7LV304ICj8Bhphy/HFpOA1rb
O9gs8CUMgqz+RroAIa8cV8gbF/fPCz9Ofl7Gdmib679JxxFrW4wRJ0nMJgJmsZXq
jaVc0g7ORc+eIAcHw7Uroc6h7Y7lGjOkDZF75j0mLQa3AgMBAAGjggGEMIIBgDAd
BgNVHQ4EFgQU3hNEuwvUGNCHY1TBatcUR03pNdYwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU3hNEuwvU
GNCHY1TBatcUR03pNdYwDwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYw
GAYDVR0gAQH/BA4wDDAKBggrBgEFBQcOAjCBuQYIKwYBBQUHAQsEgawwgakwPgYI
KwYBBQUHMAqGMnJzeW5jOi8vcnBraS5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L2V4
YW1wbGUtdGEubWZ0MDUGCCsGAQUFBzANhilodHRwczovL3JyZHAuZXhhbXBsZS5u
ZXQvbm90aWZpY2F0aW9uLnhtbDAwBggrBgEFBQcwBYYkcnN5bmM6Ly9ycGtpLmV4
YW1wbGUubmV0L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvMCcGCCsGAQUFBwEHAQH/BBgwFjAJBAIAATAD
AwEAMAkEAgACMAMDAQAwHgYIKwYBBQUHAQgEEjAQoA4wDDAKAgEAAgUA/////zAN
BgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAgZFQ0Sf3CI5Hwev61AUWHYOFniy69PuDTq+WnhDe
xX5rpjSDRrs5L756KSKJcaOJ36lzO45lfOPSY9fH6x30pnipaqRA7t5rApky24jH
cSUA9iRednzxhVyGjWKnfAKyNo2MYfaOAT0db1GjyLKbOADI9FowtHBUu+60ykcM
Quz66XrzxtmxlrRcAnbv/HtV17qOd4my6q5yjTPR1dmYN9oR/2ChlXtGE6uQVguA
rvNZ5CwiJ1TgGGTB7T8ORHwWU6dGTc0jk2rESAaikmLi1roZSNC21fckhapEit1a
x8CyiVxjcVc5e0AmS1rJfL6LIfwmtive/N/eBtIM92HkBA==
-----END CERTIFICATE-----
The CA certificate is issued by the trust anchor. This certificate
grants authority over one IPv4 address block (192.0.2.0/24) and two
AS numbers (64496 and 64497).
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
The end-entity certificate is issued by the CA. This certificate
grants signature authority for one IPv4 address block (192.0.2.0/24).
Signature authority for AS numbers is not needed for geofeed data
signatures, so no AS numbers are included in the certificate.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
The end-entity certificate is displayed below in detail. For
brevity, the other two certificates are not.
0 1197: SEQUENCE {
4 917: SEQUENCE {
8 3: [0] {
10 1: INTEGER 2
: }
13 20: INTEGER 27AD394083D7F2B5B99B8670C775B2B96EE166E3
35 13: SEQUENCE {
37 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER
: sha256WithRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 11)
48 0: NULL
: }
50 51: SEQUENCE {
52 49: SET {
54 47: SEQUENCE {
56 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3)
61 40: PrintableString
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
: '3ACE2CEF4FB21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642'
: }
: }
: }
103 30: SEQUENCE {
105 13: UTCTime 03/09/2020 19:05:17 GMT
120 13: UTCTime 30/06/2021 19:05:17 GMT
: }
135 51: SEQUENCE {
137 49: SET {
139 47: SEQUENCE {
141 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3)
146 40: PrintableString
: '914652A3BD51C144260198889F5C45ABF053A187'
: }
: }
: }
188 290: SEQUENCE {
192 13: SEQUENCE {
194 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER rsaEncryption
: (1 2 840 113549 1 1 1)
205 0: NULL
: }
207 271: BIT STRING, encapsulates {
212 266: SEQUENCE {
216 257: INTEGER
: 00 B2 71 34 2B 39 BF EA 07 65 B7 8B 72 A2 F0 F8
: 40 FC 31 16 CA 28 B6 4E 01 A8 F6 98 02 C0 EF 65
: B0 84 48 E9 96 FF 93 E6 92 89 65 8F F6 44 9C CE
: 57 10 82 D3 C2 57 0A FA DA 14 D0 64 22 28 C0 13
: 74 04 BD 1C 2B 4F F9 93 58 A6 25 D8 B9 A9 D3 37
: 9E F2 AC C0 CF 02 9E 84 75 D6 F0 7C A5 01 70 AE
: E6 66 AF 9C 69 85 74 6F 13 E9 B3 B8 95 4B 82 ED
: 95 D6 EA 66 05 7B 96 96 87 B2 9A E7 61 E9 65 89
: F8 60 E3 C0 F5 CE DD 18 97 05 E8 C1 AC E1 4D 5E
: 16 85 2D ED 3C CB 80 CF 7E BF D2 FE D5 C9 38 19
: BB 43 34 29 B6 66 CF 2D 8B 46 7E 9A D8 BB 8E 65
: 88 51 6A A8 FF 78 51 E2 E9 21 27 D7 77 7E 80 28
: 6C EA 4C 50 9C 73 71 16 F6 5E 54 14 4D 4C 14 B9
: 67 A0 4A 20 AA DA 0B A0 A0 01 B7 42 24 38 51 8A
: 78 2F C4 81 E6 81 75 62 DE E3 AF 5D 74 2F 6B 41
: FB 79 C3 A8 3A 72 6C 46 F9 A6 03 74 81 01 DF 8C
: EB
477 3: INTEGER 65537
: }
: }
: }
482 439: [3] {
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
486 435: SEQUENCE {
490 29: SEQUENCE {
492 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectKeyIdentifier (2 5 29 14)
497 22: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
499 20: OCTET STRING
: 91 46 52 A3 BD 51 C1 44 26 01 98 88 9F 5C 45 AB
: F0 53 A1 87
: }
: }
521 31: SEQUENCE {
523 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER authorityKeyIdentifier (2 5 29 35)
528 24: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
530 22: SEQUENCE {
532 20: [0]
: 3A CE 2C EF 4F B2 1B 7D 11 E3 E1 84 EF C1 E2 97
: B3 77 86 42
: }
: }
: }
554 12: SEQUENCE {
556 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER basicConstraints (2 5 29 19)
561 1: BOOLEAN TRUE
564 2: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
566 0: SEQUENCE {}
: }
: }
568 14: SEQUENCE {
570 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER keyUsage (2 5 29 15)
575 1: BOOLEAN TRUE
578 4: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
580 2: BIT STRING 7 unused bits
: '1'B (bit 0)
: }
: }
584 24: SEQUENCE {
586 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER certificatePolicies (2 5 29 32)
591 1: BOOLEAN TRUE
594 14: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
596 12: SEQUENCE {
598 10: SEQUENCE {
600 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER
: resourceCertificatePolicy (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 14 2)
: }
: }
: }
: }
610 97: SEQUENCE {
612 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER cRLDistributionPoints (2 5 29 31)
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
617 90: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
619 88: SEQUENCE {
621 86: SEQUENCE {
623 84: [0] {
625 82: [0] {
627 80: [6]
: 'rsync://rpki.example.net/repository/3ACE2CEF4F'
: 'B21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642.crl'
: }
: }
: }
: }
: }
: }
709 108: SEQUENCE {
711 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER authorityInfoAccess
: (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 1)
721 96: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
723 94: SEQUENCE {
725 92: SEQUENCE {
727 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER caIssuers (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 48 2)
737 80: [6]
: 'rsync://rpki.example.net/repository/3ACE2CEF4F'
: 'B21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642.cer'
: }
: }
: }
: }
819 33: SEQUENCE {
821 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ipAddrBlocks (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 7)
831 1: BOOLEAN TRUE
834 18: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
836 16: SEQUENCE {
838 6: SEQUENCE {
840 2: OCTET STRING 00 01
844 0: NULL
: }
846 6: SEQUENCE {
848 2: OCTET STRING 00 02
852 0: NULL
: }
: }
: }
: }
854 69: SEQUENCE {
856 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectInfoAccess
: (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 11)
866 57: OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
868 55: SEQUENCE {
870 53: SEQUENCE {
872 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 3 6 1 5 5 7 48 13'
882 41: [6]
: 'https://rrdp.example.net/notification.xml'
: }
: }
: }
: }
: }
: }
: }
925 13: SEQUENCE {
927 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER sha256WithRSAEncryption
: (1 2 840 113549 1 1 11)
938 0: NULL
: }
940 257: BIT STRING
: 05 1D 93 D2 A4 F6 57 56 65 B1 98 E3 FB 21 CF 4C
: 0A C8 54 11 02 64 54 82 74 FF 9B 25 3B 1E F3 94
: EA 62 26 E5 32 C3 52 F7 21 2E D9 23 5B 69 93 0D
: 2E E4 92 88 07 DF 62 8A 21 E2 72 18 AB F4 61 EB
: EC 46 B3 59 F8 DB B2 59 52 89 28 78 BB 58 D1 45
: 1B D9 F2 2C B9 AF 49 16 8F 18 19 39 E9 A8 33 06
: 7B EC 67 A5 B2 74 48 24 A8 06 52 42 22 3F 9B F9
: 84 BC 59 78 C4 1E DD 8A 5B AC 32 03 F0 5C 35 2F
: 1A 75 2D A9 11 4C 02 D9 CB 3F 59 CC 33 81 BB 6D
: 9E 47 27 1B BF F0 92 B4 37 A2 AC E9 0B 56 AB 29
: E9 72 CF B3 C6 20 85 C9 1B 2F 67 17 C0 B7 FD A6
: 9A 12 91 DD ED 48 08 CA F5 D8 B8 26 3F 96 A5 93
: 9B DE E3 0F 18 06 21 81 82 EF AE B4 9A D7 CE 32
: 40 7C 60 5E A4 51 4F AD 77 67 43 42 C3 33 B5 C3
: B1 6F 3A A2 1A 78 9C 99 E2 5F 07 01 B6 96 2E 8E
: D2 FA 2B 5B 87 79 88 83 93 2A 94 32 A9 F8 78 E5
: }
To allow reproduction of the signature results, the end-entity
private key is provided. For brevity, the other two private keys are
not.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----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-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
Signing of "192.0.2.0/24,US,WA,Seattle," (terminated by CR and LF),
yields the following detached CMS signature.
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
# RPKI Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
# MIIGlwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIGiDCCBoQCAQMxDTALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwDQYLKoZ
# IhvcNAQkQAS+gggSxMIIErTCCA5WgAwIBAgIUJ605QIPX8rW5m4Zwx3WyuW7hZu
# MwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoM0FDRTJDRUY0RkIyMUI3RDExR
# TNFMTg0RUZDMUUyOTdCMzc3ODY0MjAeFw0yMDA5MDMxOTA1MTdaFw0yMTA2MzAx
# OTA1MTdaMDMxMTAvBgNVBAMTKDkxNDY1MkEzQkQ1MUMxNDQyNjAxOTg4ODlGNUM
# 0NUFCRjA1M0ExODcwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCycT
# QrOb/qB2W3i3Ki8PhA/DEWyii2TgGo9pgCwO9lsIRI6Zb/k+aSiWWP9kSczlcQg
# tPCVwr62hTQZCIowBN0BL0cK0/5k1imJdi5qdM3nvKswM8CnoR11vB8pQFwruZm
# r5xphXRvE+mzuJVLgu2V1upmBXuWloeymudh6WWJ+GDjwPXO3RiXBejBrOFNXha
# FLe08y4DPfr/S/tXJOBm7QzQptmbPLYtGfprYu45liFFqqP94UeLpISfXd36AKG
# zqTFCcc3EW9l5UFE1MFLlnoEogqtoLoKABt0IkOFGKeC/EgeaBdWLe469ddC9rQ
# ft5w6g6cmxG+aYDdIEB34zrAgMBAAGjggG3MIIBszAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUkUZSo71R
# wUQmAZiIn1xFq/BToYcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUOs4s70+yG30R4+GE78Hil7N3hkI
# wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCB4AwGAYDVR0gAQH/BA4wDDAKBg
# grBgEFBQcOAjBhBgNVHR8EWjBYMFagVKBShlByc3luYzovL3Jwa2kuZXhhbXBsZ
# S5uZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeS8zQUNFMkNFRjRGQjIxQjdEMTFFM0UxODRFRkMxRTI5
# N0IzNzc4NjQyLmNybDBsBggrBgEFBQcBAQRgMF4wXAYIKwYBBQUHMAKGUHJzeW5
# jOi8vcnBraS5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LzNBQ0UyQ0VGNEZCMjFCN0
# QxMUUzRTE4NEVGQzFFMjk3QjM3Nzg2NDIuY2VyMCEGCCsGAQUFBwEHAQH/BBIwE
# DAGBAIAAQUAMAYEAgACBQAwRQYIKwYBBQUHAQsEOTA3MDUGCCsGAQUFBzANhilo
# dHRwczovL3JyZHAuZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQvbm90aWZpY2F0aW9uLnhtbDANBgkqhki
# G9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEABR2T0qT2V1ZlsZjj+yHPTArIVBECZFSCdP+bJTse85TqYi
# blMsNS9yEu2SNbaZMNLuSSiAffYooh4nIYq/Rh6+xGs1n427JZUokoeLtY0UUb2
# fIsua9JFo8YGTnpqDMGe+xnpbJ0SCSoBlJCIj+b+YS8WXjEHt2KW6wyA/BcNS8a
# dS2pEUwC2cs/WcwzgbttnkcnG7/wkrQ3oqzpC1arKelyz7PGIIXJGy9nF8C3/aa
# aEpHd7UgIyvXYuCY/lqWTm97jDxgGIYGC7660mtfOMkB8YF6kUU+td2dDQsMztc
# OxbzqiGnicmeJfBwG2li6O0vorW4d5iIOTKpQyqfh45TGCAaowggGmAgEDgBSRR
# lKjvVHBRCYBmIifXEWr8FOhhzALBglghkgBZQMEAgGgazAaBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMx
# DQYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAS8wHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTIwMDkxMzE4NDUxMFowLwY
# JKoZIhvcNAQkEMSIEICvi8p5S8ckg2wTRhDBQzGijjyqs5T6I+4VtBHypfcEWMA
# 0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAHUrA4PaJG42BD3hpF8U0usnV3Dg5NQh97SfyKTk7
# YHhhwu/936gkmAew8ODRTCddMvMObWkjj7/XeR+WKffaTF1EAdZ1L6REV+GlV91
# cYnFkT9ldn4wHQnNNncfAehk5PClYUUQ0gqjdJT1hdaolT83b3ttekyYIiwPmHE
# xRaNkSvKenlNqcriaaf3rbQy9dc2d1KxrL2429n134ICqjKeRnHkXXrCWDmyv/3
# imwYkXpiMxw44EZqDjl36MiWsRDLdgoijBBcGbibwyAfGeR46k5raZCGvxG+4xa
# O8PDTxTfIYwAnBjRBKAqAZ7yX5xHfm58jUXsZJ7Ileq1S7G6Kk=
# End Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush
IIJ & Arrcus
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
United States of America
Email: randy@psg.com
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds April 2021
Massimo Candela
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp 2132 WT
Netherlands
Email: massimo@ntt.net
Warren Kumari
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: warren@kumari.net
Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
516 Dranesville Road
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
Email: housley@vigilsec.com
Bush, et al. Expires October 15, 2021 [Page 20]
