Network Working Group                                            R. Bush
Internet-Draft                  Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                            J. Borkenhagen
Expires: 11 August 2022                                             AT&T
                                                          T. Bruijnzeels
                                                              NLnet Labs
                                                             J. Snijders
                                                                  Fastly
                                                         7 February 2022


Timing Parameters in the RPKI based Route Origin Validation Supply Chain
                 draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rov-timing-06

Abstract

   This document explores, and makes recommendations for, timing of
   Resource Public Key Infrastructure publication of ROV data, their
   propagation, and their use in Relying Parties, caches, and routers.

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.

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 11 August 2022.







Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Certification Authority Publishing  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Relying Party Fetching  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Router Updating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Effect on Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Alternative Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Operational Expectations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   This document explores, and makes recommendations for, timing of
   Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) publication of ROV data,
   their propagation, and their use in Relying Parties (RP), caches, and
   routers.

   The RPKI ROA supply chain from CAs to when they reach routers has the
   following structure:

   Cerification Authorities:  The authoritative data of the RPKI are
      meant to be published by a distributed set of Certification
      Authorities (CAs) at the IANA, RIRs, NIRs, and ISPs (see
      [RFC6481]).

   Publication Points:  The CAs publish their authoritative data in



Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


      publicly accessible repositories which have a Publication Point
      (PP) for each CA.  A CA may publish directly at a PP or may use
      the RPKI Publication Protocol [RFC8181].

   Relying Parties:  Relying Parties are a local (to the routers) set of
      one or more collected and verified caches of RPKI data which the
      RPs collect from the PPs.

      Currently RPs can pull from other RPs, thereby allowing a somewhat
      complex topology.

   Routers:  Validating routers fetch data from local RP caches using
      the RPKI to Router Protocol, [RFC8210] and
      [I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis].  Routers are clients of the caches.
      Validating routers MUST have a trust relationship with, and a
      trusted transport channel to, any RP(s) they use.
      [I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis] specifies mechanisms for a router to
      assure itself of the authenticity of the cache(s) and to
      authenticate itself to cache(s).

   As Resource Public Key Infrastructure based Route Origin Validation
   (ROV) becomes deployed in the Internet, the quality of the routing
   control plane, and hence timely and accurate delivery of packets in
   the data plane, increasingly depend on prompt and accurate
   propagation of the RPKI data from the originating Certification
   Authorities (CAs), to Relying Parties (RPs), to Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP) speaking routers.

   Origin Validation based on stale ROAs allows accidental or
   intentional mis-origination; announcement of a prefix by an AS which
   does not have the authority to do so.  Delays in ROA propagation to
   ROV in routers might cause loss of good traffic.  Therefore
   minimizing propagation time of data from CAs to routers is important.

   Before the data can start on the CA to router supply chain, the
   resource holder (operator) MUST create, modify, or delete the
   relevant ROA(s) through the CA's operational interface(s).  The
   operator is responsible for anticipating their future needs for ROAs,
   be aware of the propagation time from creating ROAs to effect on
   routing, and SHOULD create, delete, or modify ROAs sufficiently in
   advance of any needs in the routing system.

   There are questions of how frewwww3quently a CA publishes, how often
   an RP pulls, and how often routers pull from their RP(s).  Overall,
   the router(s) SHOULD react within an hour of ROA publication.  In
   pessimistic circumstances, it could be two hours.





Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


   For CAs publishing to PPs, a few seconds to a minute seems easily
   achieved with reasonable software.  See Section 3.

   Relying Party validating caches periodically retrieve data from CA
   publication points.  RPs using rsync to poll publication points every
   ten minutes would be a burden today, given the load it would put on
   publication services, cf. one notorious repository which was
   structured against specification.  RPs using RRDP impose less load.
   As the infrastructure moves from rsync to RRDP
   [I-D.ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp], RRDP is designed for quite frequent
   polling as long as Relying Parties use the If-Modified-Since (see
   [RFC7232]) header and there is a caching infrastructure.  For rsync,
   an hour would be the longest acceptable window and half an hour the
   shortest.  See Section 4.

   For BGP speaking router(s) pulling from the RP(s), five minutes to an
   hour is a wide window.  But, the RPKI-Rtr protocol does have the
   Serial Notify PDU, the equivalent of DNS Notify [RFC1996], where the
   cache tells the router that it has new data.  See Section 5.

   We discuss each of these in more detail below.

2.  Related Work

   It is assumed that the reader understands BGP, [RFC4271], the RPKI
   [RFC6480], RPKI Manifests [RFC6486], Route Origin Authorizations
   (ROAs), [RFC6482], the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)
   [RFC8182], The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router
   Protocol [I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis], RPKI-based Prefix Validation,
   [RFC6811], and Origin Validation Clarifications, [RFC8481].

3.  Certification Authority Publishing

   One constraint on publication timing can be ensuring the CRL and
   Manifest ([RFC6486]) are consistent with each other and with respect
   to the other repository data.  With both rsync and RRDP protocols,
   the publication point MUST be consistent before it becomes current
   and is published.

   Operators should beware that there may be implementation dependent
   delays between instructing their CAs to create and/or update ROAs and
   the publication of these changes in the PPs.









Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


4.  Relying Party Fetching

   rsync puts a load on RPKI publication point servers.  Therefore
   relying party caches have been discouraged from fetching more
   frequently than on the order of a half hour.  Times as long as a day
   were even suggested.  We specify that RPs using rsync SHOULD pull
   from CA publication points every 30 to 60 minutes.

   With RRDP ([RFC8182]), such constraints can be less relevant.
   [RFC8182] makes clear that polling as frequently as once a minute is
   acceptable if and only if Relying Parties use the If-Modified-Since
   header and there is caching.  Absent use of the If-Modified-Since
   header, the RRDP polling interval MUST NOT be more frequent than ten
   minutes.  Use of the If-Modified-Since header is strongly
   RECOMMENDED.

   Migration from rsync to RRDP in [I-D.ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp] is
   recommended.  During dual RRDP/rsync operation, should an RP need to
   fall over from RRDP to rsync, a uniformly distributed jittered delay
   with a mean of half the rsync interval SHOULD be used; so clients
   falling over to rsync are as spread out as they would be if they used
   rsync initallly.

   A number of timers are embedded in the X.509 RPKI data which should
   also be considered.  E.g., CRL publication commitments, expiration of
   EE certificates pointing to Manifests, and the Manifests themselves.
   Some CA operators commonly indicate new CRL information should be
   available in the next 24 hours.  These 24 hour sliding timers, when
   combined with fetching RPKI data once a day, would expose failure
   windows, especially in the face of transient network issues between
   the CA and RP.  To ameliorate this, RPs SHOULD update from CAs at
   least as frequently as once an hour.

   In summary, the following timing constraints SHOULD be applied to
   data update: RPs SHOULD update from CAs at least once an hour.  To
   avoid excess load, RPs SHOULD NOT update via rsync more frequently
   than every 30 minutes.  RPs using RRDP SHOULD NOT need to update more
   frequently than every 10 minutes.  Some form of timing jitter MUST be
   applied to ensure load distribution across the community.  RPs SHOULD
   NOT force data fetch to be on the hour or similar times.  Publication
   Points SHOULD deploy RRDP services which honor If-Modified-Since.

   In general, CAs should have Manifest, CRL, ... timers of a few days
   to allow relying party operators to go away for the weekend and not
   fear for their control plane.






Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


5.  Router Updating

   The rate of change of ROA data is estimated to remain small, on the
   order of a few ROAs a minute, but with bursts.  Therefore, the
   routers may update from the (presumed local) relying party cache(s)
   quite frequently.  Note that [I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis] recommends a
   polling interval of one hour.  This polling timing is conservative
   because caches can send a Serial Notify PDU to tell routers when
   there are new data to be fetched.  As the RP cache and the router
   belong to the same operator, routers are free to hammer the RPs as
   frequently as they wish.

   A router SHOULD respond with a Serial Query when it receives a Serial
   Notify from a cache.  If a router can not respond appropriately to a
   Serial Notify, then it MUST send a periodic Serial Query no less
   frequently than once an hour.

6.  Effect on Routing

   Once a router has received an End of Data PDU from a cache, the
   effect on Route Origin Validation MUST be a matter of seconds to a
   minute.  The router MAY allow incoming VRPs to affect Origin
   Validation as they arrive instead of waiting for the End of Data PDU.
   See [I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis] for some cautions regarding the
   arrival and processing sequence of VRPs.

7.  Alternative Technologies

   Should the supply chain include components or technologies other than
   those in IETF documents, the end effect SHOULD be the same; the
   router(s) SHOULD react to invalid AS origins within the same overall
   time constraint, one hour, two at most, from ROA creation at the CA
   publication point to effect in the router.

8.  Operational Expectations

   Assuming the above recommendations, in worst conditions such as an
   RPKI-rtr Notify PDU being ignored, it may take up to two hours for a
   new ROA to propagate from creation at the CA to BGP speaking routers.
   Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that planned changes in ROAs take this
   propagation time into consideration.  E.g. if a new route is to be
   announced in BGP, the operators SHOULD create the ROA around three
   hours before BGP announcement, or it may not propagate globally.








Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


9.  Security Considerations

   Despite common misconceptions and marketing, Route Origin Validation
   is not a magic security protocol.  It is intended to catch
   operational errors, and is easily gamed and attacked through, for
   example, AS Path manipulation.  It is one tool in the prudent
   operator's kit, and a good one.

   If an attacker can add, delete, or modify RPKI data, either in
   repositories or in flight, they can affect routing and thereby steer
   or damage traffic.  The RPKI system design does much to deter these
   attacks.  But the 'last mile' from the cache to the router uses
   transport, as opposed to object, security and is vulnerable.  This is
   discussed in [I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis].

   Similarly, if an attacker can delay prompt propagation of RPKI data
   on the supply chain described in this document, they can affect
   routing, and therefore traffic flow, to their advantage.

10.  IANA Considerations

   None

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis]
              Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key
              Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 2", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-
              05, 22 December 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
              draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-05.txt>.

   [RFC1996]  Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
              Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC1996,
              August 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1996>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.




Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6486]  Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
              "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI)", RFC 6486, DOI 10.17487/RFC6486, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6486>.

   [RFC6811]  Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
              Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6811>.

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8181]  Weiler, S., Sonalker, A., and R. Austein, "A Publication
              Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI)", RFC 8181, DOI 10.17487/RFC8181, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8181>.

   [RFC8182]  Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein,
              "The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)", RFC 8182,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8182, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8182>.

   [RFC8210]  Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key
              Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1",
              RFC 8210, DOI 10.17487/RFC8210, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8210>.

   [RFC8481]  Bush, R., "Clarifications to BGP Origin Validation Based
              on Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", RFC 8481,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8481, September 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8481>.



Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp]
              Bruijnzeels, T., Bush, R., and G. Michaelson, "Resource
              Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Repository Requirements",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-
              prefer-rrdp-01, 22 October 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-
              prefer-rrdp-01.txt>.

   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,
              February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank George Michaelson, Massimiliano Stucchi and
   Ties de Kock.

Authors' Addresses

   Randy Bush
   Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus, Inc.
   5147 Crystal Springs
   Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
   United States of America

   Email: randy@psg.com


   Jay Borkenhagen
   AT&T
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   United States of America

   Email: jayb@att.com


   Tim Bruijnzeels
   NLnet Labs

   Email: tim@nlnetlabs.nl
   URI:   https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/







Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               RPKI ROV Timing               February 2022


   Job Snijders
   Fastly
   Amsterdam
   Netherlands

   Email: job@fastly.com













































Bush, et al.             Expires 11 August 2022                [Page 10]