Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023
Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-maditimbru-rfc8416-bis-01
Obsoletes:
8416 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
D. Ma
ZDNS
T. Bruijnzeels
NLnet Labs

Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI (SLURM)

Abstract

The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is a global authorization infrastructure that allows the holder of Internet Number Resources (INRs) to make verifiable statements about those resources. Network operators, e.g., Internet Service Providers (ISPs), can use the RPKI to validate BGP route origin assertions. ISPs can also use the RPKI to validate the path of a BGP route. However, ISPs may want to establish a local view of exceptions to the RPKI data in the form of local filters and additions. The mechanisms described in this document provide a simple way to enable INR holders to establish a local, customized view of the RPKI, overriding global RPKI repository data as needed.

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 8 January 2024.

1. Requirements notation

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. Introduction

The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is a global authorization infrastructure that allows the holder of Internet Number Resources (INRs) to make verifiable statements about those resources. For example, the holder of a block of IP(v4 or v6) addresses can issue a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) [RFC6482] to authorize an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes for that block. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can then use the RPKI to validate BGP routes. (Validation of the origin of a route is described in [RFC6811], BGPSec validation of the path of a route is described in [RFC8205], and ASPA based verification of the path is decsribed in [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification].

However, an RPKI Relying Party (RP) may want to override some of the information expressed via configured Trust Anchors (TAs) and the certificates downloaded from the RPKI repository system. For instance, [RFC6491] recommends the creation of ROAs that would invalidate public routes for reserved and unallocated address space, yet some ISPs might like to use BGP and the RPKI with private address space (see [RFC1918], [RFC4193], and [RFC6598]) or private AS numbers (see [RFC1930] and [RFC6996]). Local use of private address space and/or AS numbers is consistent with the RFCs cited above, but such use cannot be verified by the global RPKI. This motivates creation of mechanisms that enable a network operator to publish, at its discretion, an exception to the RPKI in the form of filters and additions (for its own use and that of its customers). Additionally, a network operator might wish to make use of a local override capability to protect routes from adverse actions [RFC8211], until the results of such actions have been addressed. The mechanisms developed to provide this capability to network operators are hereby called "Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI (SLURM)".

3. RP with SLURM

SLURM provides a simple way to enable an RP to establish a local, customized view of the RPKI, overriding RPKI repository data if needed. To that end, an RP with SLURM can filter out (i.e., removes from consideration for routing decisions) ROA Prefix, ASPA and BGPSec assertions in the RPKI, and can add local assertions instead or in addition to the ones found in the RPKI.

In general, the primary output of an RP is the data it sends to routers over the RPKI-Router protocol [RFC8210]. The RPKI-Router protocol enables routers to query an RP for all assertions it knows about (Reset Query) or for an update of only the changes in assertions (Serial Query). The mechanisms specified in this document are to be applied to the result set for a Reset Query and to both the old and new sets that are compared for a Serial Query. RP software may modify other forms of output in comparable ways, but that is outside the scope of this document.

+--------------+   +---------------------------+   +------------+
|              |   |                           |   |            |
| Repositories +--->Local cache of RPKI objects+---> Validation |
|              |   |                           |   |            |
+--------------+   +---------------------------+   +-----+------+
                                                        |
      +-------------------------------------------------+
      |
+------v-------+   +------------+   +-----------+   +-------------+
|              |   |            |   |           |   |             |
|    SLURM     +--->   SLURM    +--->RPKI-Router+---> BGP Speakers|
|   Filters    |   | Assertions |   | Protocol  |   |             |
+--------------+   +------------+   +-----------+   +-------------+
Figure 1: SLURM's Position in the RP Stack

4. SLURM Files and Mechanisms

4.1. Use of JSON

SLURM filters and assertions are specified in JSON format [RFC8259]. JSON members that are not defined here MUST NOT be used in SLURM files. An RP MUST consider any deviations from the specifications to be errors. Future additions to the specifications in this document MUST use an incremented value for the "slurmVersion" member.

4.2. SLURM File Overview

A SLURM file consists of a single JSON object containing following members:

  • A "slurmVersion" member that MUST be set to 2, encoded as a number
  • A "validationOutputFilters" member (Section 4.3), whose value is an object. The object MUST contain exactly three members:

    • A "prefixFilters" member, whose value is described in Section 4.3.1.
    • A "bgpsecFilters" member, whose value is described in Section 4.3.2.
    • A "aspaFilters" member, whose value is described in Section 4.3.3.
  • A "locallyAddedAssertions" member (Section 3.4), whose value is an object. The object MUST contain exactly three members:

    • A "prefixAssertions" member, whose value is described in Section 4.4.1.
    • A "bgpsecAssertions" member, whose value is described in Section 4.4.2.
    • A "aspaAssertions" member, whose value is described in Section 4.4.3.

In the envisioned typical use case, an RP uses both Validation Output Filters and Locally Added Assertions. In this case, the resulting assertions MUST be the same as if output filtering were performed before locally adding assertions; that is, Locally Added Assertions MUST NOT be removed by output filtering.

The following JSON structure with JSON members represents a SLURM file that has no filters or assertions:

{
  "slurmVersion": 2,
  "validationOutputFilters": {
    "prefixFilters": [],
    "bgpsecFilters": [],
    "aspaFilters": []
  },
  "locallyAddedAssertions": {
    "prefixAssertions": [],
    "bgpsecAssertions": [],
    "aspaAssertions": []
  }
}
Figure 2: Empty SLURM File

4.3. Validation Output Filters

4.3.1. Validated ROA Prefix Filters

The RP can configure zero or more Validated ROA Prefix Filters ("Prefix Filters" for short). Each Prefix Filter can contain either an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix and/or an ASN. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is included with each Prefix Filter so that it can be shown to users of the RP software.

The above is expressed as a value of the "prefixFilters" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain either 1) one of the following members or 2) one of each of the following members.

  • A "prefix" member, whose value is a string representing either an IPv4 prefix [RFC4632] or an IPv6 prefix ([RFC5952]).

  • An "asn" member, whose value is a number.

In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, whose value is a string.

The following example JSON structure represents a "prefixFilters" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above:

"prefixFilters": [
  {
    "prefix": "192.0.2.0/24",
    "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix"
  },
  {
    "asn": 64496,
    "comment": "All VRPs matching ASN"
  },
  {
    "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24",
    "asn": 64497,
    "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix, matching ASN"
  }
]
Figure 3: "prefixFilters" Examples

Any Validated ROA Payload (VRP) [RFC6811] that matches any configured Prefix Filter MUST be removed from the RP's output.

A VRP is considered to match with a Prefix Filter if one of the following cases applies:

  1. If the Prefix Filter only contains an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix, the VRP is considered to match the filter if the VRP prefix is equal to or covered by the Prefix Filter prefix.

  2. If the Prefix Filter only contains an ASN, the VRP is considered to match the filter if the VRP ASN matches the Prefix Filter ASN.

  3. If the Prefix Filter contains both an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix and an ASN, the VRP is considered to match if the VRP prefix is equal to or covered by the Prefix Filter prefix and the VRP ASN matches the Prefix Filter ASN.

4.3.2. BGPsec Assertion Filters

The RP can configure zero or more BGPsec Assertion Filters ("BGPsec Filters" for short). Each BGPsec Filter can contain an ASN and/or the Base64 [RFC4648] encoding of a Router Subject Key Identifier (SKI), as described in [RFC8209] and [RFC6487]. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included with each BGPsec Filter, so that it can be shown to users of the RP software.

The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecFilters" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one of either, or one each of both following members:

  • An "asn" member, whose value is a number

  • An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key Identifier as described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487]. (This is the value of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.)

In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, whose value is a string.

The following example JSON structure represents a "bgpsecFilters" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above:

"bgpsecFilters": [
  {
    "asn": 64496,
    "comment": "All keys for ASN"
  },
  {
    "SKI": "<Base 64 of some SKI>",
    "comment": "Key matching Router SKI"
  },
  {
    "asn": 64497,
    "SKI": "<Base 64 of some SKI>",
    "comment": "Key for ASN 64497 matching Router SKI"
  }
]
Figure 4: "bgpsecFilters" Examples

Any BGPsec Assertion that matches any configured BGPsec Filter MUST be removed from the RP's output. A BGPsec Assertion is considered to match with a BGPsec Filter if one of the following cases applies:

  1. If the BGPsec Filter only contains an ASN, a BGPsec Assertion is considered to match if the Assertion ASN matches the Filter ASN.

  2. If the BGPsec Filter only contains an SKI, a BGPsec Assertion is considered to match if the Assertion Router SKI matches the Filter SKI.

  3. If the BGPsec Filter contains both an ASN and a Router SKI, then a BGPsec Assertion is considered to match if both the Assertion ASN matches the Filter ASN and the Assertion Router SKI matches the Filter SKI.

4.3.3. ASPA Filters

The RP can configure zero or more ASPA Filters. Each ASPA Filter can contain a customer ASN and/or a list of providers ASNs. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is included with each ASPA Filter so that it can be shown to users of the RP software.

The above is expressed as a value of the "aspaFilters" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain at least one of the following members:

  • A "customerAsid" member, whose value is a number representing an ASPA Customer Autonomous System as described in section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile].
  • A "providers" member, whose value is an array of 1 or more numbers representing ASPA provider ASes as described in section 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile].

In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, whose value is a string.

The following example JSON structure represents a "aspaFilters" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above:

{
"aspaFilters": [
  {
    "customerAsid": 64496,
    "comment": "Filter out all VAPs that have 64496 as Customer ASID"
  },
  {
    "customerAsid": 64497,
    "providers": [ 64498, 64499],
    "comment": "Filter some providers with 64497 as Customer ASID"
  },
  {
    "providers": [ 65003 ],
    "comment": "Never accept 65003 as a valid provider."
  }
]
}
Figure 5: "aspaFilters" Examples
4.3.3.1. ASPA Unions and Filters

Before applying any ASPA filter an RP MUST first obtain a set of validated ASPA objects, extract the Validated ASPA Payload (VAP) for each object, and then make unions of all VAPs pertaining to the same customer ASN. A unified VAP for a customer ASN will contain the union of all provider ASes that are contained in any of the source VAPs.

Example using human readable ASPA notation [I-D.timbru-sidrops-aspa-notation]:

Given VAPs from ASPA Objects:
  AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003,
  AS65000 =>          AS65002, AS65003, AS65004

Unified VAP:
  AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004
Figure 6: VAP Customer Only Filter Example
4.3.3.1.1. Customer AS Only Filter

If an ASPA filter specifies a "customerAsid" only, then the unified VAP matching the Customer Autonomous System MUST be removed entirely.

Example using human readable ASPA notation:

Given VAP:
  AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002

Filter:
  "customerAsid": AS65000

Result:
  VAP is removed completely
Figure 7: VAP Customer Only Filter Example
4.3.3.1.2. Providers Only Filter

If an ASPA filter specifies a "providers" array only, then matching provider AS statements MUST be removed from any unified VAP, i.e. regardless of the "customerAsid" used.

Example using human readable ASPA notation:

Given VAPs:
  AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004
  AS65005 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004

Filter:
  "providers": [ 65001, 65002, 65003]

Result:
  AS65000 => AS65001, AS65004
  AS65005 => AS65001, AS65004
Figure 8: VAP Provider Only Filter Example
4.3.3.1.3. Customer AS and Providers Filter

If a filter specifies both "customerAsid" and "providers", then the provider filter is applied only to the unified VAP that matches the Customer Autonomous System.

Example using human readable ASPA notation:

Given VAPs:
  AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004
  AS65005 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004

Filter:
  "customerAsid": 65000,
  "providers": [ 65002, 65003, 65004 ]

Result:
  AS65000 => AS65001
  AS65005 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004
Figure 9: VAP Customer and Provider Filter Example
4.3.3.1.4. ASPA Filter Considerations

It should be noted that while this standard allows for fine-grained ASPA filters to be specified, no specific way to filter is recommended here. In other words, this document aims to give operators set logic oriented tools to manipulate the VAPs that would be communicated to their routers, but it does not make any assumptions about use cases and best practices.

This design choice is based on the conviction that not all possible use cases can be known at this time, and that more deployment experience is needed before best practices can be formulated. It is however encouraged that this discussion takes place, and that, if needed, a follow-up document that describes use cases and best practices is made in future.

4.4. Locally Added Assertions

4.4.1. ROA Prefix Assertions

Each RP is locally configured with a (possibly empty) array of ROA Prefix Assertions ("Prefix Assertions" for short). Each ROA Prefix Assertion MUST contain an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix and an ASN. It MAY include a value for the maximum length. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included with each so that it can be shown to users of the RP software.

The above is expressed as a value of the "prefixAssertions" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one of each of the following members:

  • A "prefix" member, whose value is a string representing either an IPv4 prefix (see Section 3.1 of [RFC4632]) or an IPv6 prefix (see [RFC5952]).

  • An "asn" member, whose value is a number.

In addition, each object MAY contain one of each of the following members:

  • A "maxPrefixLength" member, whose value is a number.

  • A "comment" member, whose value is a string.

The following example JSON structure represents a "prefixAssertions" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above:

"prefixAssertions": [
  {
    "asn": 64496,
    "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24",
    "comment": "My other important route"
  },
  {
    "asn": 64496,
    "prefix": "2001:DB8::/32",
    "maxPrefixLength": 48,
    "comment": "My other important de-aggregated routes"
  }
]
Figure 10: "prefixAssertions" Examples

Note that the combination of the prefix, ASN, and optional maximum length describes a VRP as described in [RFC6811]. The RP MUST add all Prefix Assertions found this way to the VRP found through RPKI validation and ensure that it sends the complete set of Protocol Data Units (PDUs), excluding duplicates when using the RPKI-Router protocol (see Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of [RFC8210]).

4.4.2. BGPsec Assertions

Each RP is locally configured with a (possibly empty) array of BGPsec Assertions. Each BGPsec Assertion MUST contain an AS number, a Router SKI, and the router public key. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included so that it can be shown to users of the RP software.

The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecAssertions" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one each of all of the following members:

  • An "asn" member, whose value is a number.

  • An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key Identifier as described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487] (This is the value of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.)

  • A "routerPublicKey" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the equivalent to the subjectPublicKeyInfo value of the router certificate's public key, as described in [RFC8208]. This is the full ASN.1 DER encoding of the subjectPublicKeyInfo, including the ASN.1 tag and length values of the subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE.

  • An optional "comment" member, whose value is a string.

The following example JSON structure represents a "bgpsecAssertions" member with one object as described above:

"bgpsecAssertions": [
  {
    "asn": 64496,
    "SKI": "<some base64 SKI>",
    "routerPublicKey": "<some base64 public key>",
    "comment": "My known key for my important ASN"
  }
]
Figure 11: "bgpsecAssertions" Examples

Note that a "bgpsecAssertions" member matches the syntax of the Router Key PDU described in Section 5.10 of [RFC8210]. Relying Parties MUST add any "bgpsecAssertions" member thus found to the set of Router Key PDUs, excluding duplicates, when using the RPKI-Router protocol [RFC8210].

4.4.3. ASPA Assertions

Each RP is locally configured with a (possibly empty) array of ASPA assertions. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included so that it can be shown to users of the RP software.

The above is expressed as a value of the "aspaAssertions" member, as an array of zero or more objects. The object structure is similar to the ASPA filter structure, except that in this case both a "customerAsid" member and a "providers" member containing at at least one provider ASN MUST be specified.

"aspaAssertions": [
  {
    "customerAsid": 64496,
    "providers": [ 64498, 64499, 64500 ],
    "comment": "Authorize additional providers for customer AS 64496"
  }
]
Figure 12: "aspaAssertions" Example

Assertions are applied after the RP obtained unified VAPs and applied any configured filters. If there is an existing unified and potentially partially filtered VAP for the assertion customer ASN, then the additional authorizations are merged into this in the same way as VAPs are merged (see section 4.3.3.1).

Note that the presence of an ASPA assertion does not imply any filtering. If the intent is to replace all existing authorized providers then an ASPA filter for the customer ASN only (i.e. without listing providers) should be used in addition as this would ensure that the original unified VAP is removed before the assertion is applied.

4.5. Example of a SLURM File with Filters and Assertions

The following JSON structure represents an example of a SLURM file that uses all the elements described in the previous sections:

{
  "slurmVersion": 2,
  "validationOutputFilters": {
    "prefixFilters": [
      {
        "prefix": "192.0.2.0/24",
        "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix"
      },
      {
        "asn": 64496,
        "comment": "All VRPs matching ASN"
      },
      {
        "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24",
        "asn": 64497,
        "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix, matching ASN"
      }
    ],
    "bgpsecFilters": [
      {
        "asn": 64496,
        "comment": "All keys for ASN"
      },
      {
        "SKI": "Zm9v",
        "comment": "Key matching Router SKI"
      },
      {
        "asn": 64497,
        "SKI": "YmFy",
        "comment": "Key for ASN 64497 matching Router SKI"
      }
    ],
    "aspaFilters": [
      {
        "customerAsid": 64496,
        "comment": "Filter out all VAPs for customer AS 64496"
      },
      {
        "customerAsid": 64497,
        "providers": [ 64498, 64499, 64500 ],
        "comment": "Filter some providers for customer AS 64497"
      },
      {
        "providers": [ 65001 ],
        "comment": "Never accept 65001 as a valid provider."
      }
    ]
  },
  "locallyAddedAssertions": {
    "prefixAssertions": [
      {
        "asn": 64496,
        "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24",
        "comment": "My other important route"
      },
      {
        "asn": 64496,
        "prefix": "2001:DB8::/32",
        "maxPrefixLength": 48,
        "comment": "My other important de-aggregated routes"
      }
    ],
    "bgpsecAssertions": [
      {
        "asn": 64496,
        "comment" : "My known key for my important ASN",
        "SKI": "<some base64 SKI>",
        "routerPublicKey": "<some base64 public key>"
      }
    ],
    "aspaAssertions": [
      {
        "customerAsid": 64496,
        "providers": [ 64498, 64499, 64500 ],
        "comment": "Authorize additional providers for AS 64496"
      }
    ]
  }
}
Figure 13: Example of Full SLURM File

5. SLURM File Configuration

5.1. SLURM File Atomicity

To ensure local consistency, the effect of SLURM MUST be atomic. That is, the output of the RP either MUST be the same as if a SLURM file were not used or MUST reflect the entire SLURM configuration. For an example of why this is required, consider the case of two local routes for the same prefix but different origin ASNs. Both routes are configured with Locally Added Assertions. If neither addition occurs, then both routes could be in the NotFound state [RFC6811]. If both additions occur, then both routes would be in the Valid state. However, if one addition occurs and the other does not, then one could be Invalid while the other is Valid.

5.2. Multiple SLURM Files

An implementation MAY support the concurrent use of multiple SLURM files. In this case, the resulting inputs to Validation Output Filters and Locally Added Assertions are the respective unions of the inputs from each file. The envisioned typical use case for multiple files is when the files have distinct scopes. For instance, operators of two distinct networks may resort to one RP system to frame routing decisions. As such, they probably deliver SLURM files to this RP independently. Before an RP configures SLURM files from different sources, it MUST make sure there is no internal conflict among the INR assertions in these SLURM files. To do so, the RP SHOULD check the entries of each SLURM file with regard to overlaps of the INR assertions and report errors to the sources that created the SLURM files in question. The RP gets multiple SLURM files as a set, and the whole set MUST be rejected in case of any overlaps among the SLURM files.

If a problem is detected with the INR assertions in these SLURM files, the RP MUST NOT use them and SHOULD issue a warning as error report in the following cases:

  1. There may be conflicting changes to ROA Prefix Assertions if an IP address X and distinct SLURM files Y and Z exist such that X is contained by any prefix in any "prefixAssertions" or "prefixFilters" in file Y and X is contained by any prefix in any "prefixAssertions" or "prefixFilters" in file Z.

  2. There may be conflicting changes to BGPsec Assertions if an ASN X and distinct SLURM files Y and Z exist such that X is used in any "bgpsecAssertions" or "bgpsecFilters" in file Y and X is used in any "bgpsecAssertions" or "bgpsecFilters" in file Z.

6. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

7. Security Considerations

The mechanisms described in this document provide a network operator with additional ways to control use of RPKI data while preserving autonomy in address space and ASN management. These mechanisms are only applied locally; they do not influence how other network operators interpret RPKI data. Nonetheless, care should be taken in how these mechanisms are employed. Note that it also is possible to use SLURM to (locally) manipulate assertions about non-private INRs, e.g., allocated address space that is globally routed. For example, a SLURM file may be used to override RPKI data that a network operator believes has been corrupted by an adverse action. Network operators who elect to use SLURM in this fashion should use extreme caution.

The goal of the mechanisms described in this document is to enable an RP to create its own view of the RPKI, which is intrinsically a security function. An RP using a SLURM file is trusting the assertions made in that file. Errors in the SLURM file used by an RP can undermine the security offered to that RP by the RPKI. A SLURM file could declare as invalid ROAs that would otherwise be valid, and vice versa. As a result, an RP MUST carefully consider the security implications of the SLURM file being used, especially if the file is provided by a third party.

Additionally, each RP using SLURM MUST ensure the authenticity and integrity of any SLURM file that it uses. Initially, the SLURM file may be preconfigured out of band, but if the RP updates its SLURM file over the network, it MUST verify the authenticity and integrity of the updated SLURM file. The mechanism to update the SLURM file to guarantee authenticity and integrity is out of the scope of this document.

8. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank David Mandelberg for co-authoring [RFC8416] which this document replaces. The authors would also like to thank Stephen Kent, Richard Hansen, Hui Zou and Chunlin An for their contributions to [RFC8416].

9. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile]
Azimov, A., Uskov, E., Bush, R., Snijders, J., Housley, R., and B. Maddison, "A Profile for Autonomous System Provider Authorization", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]
Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., Snijders, J., and K. Sriram, "BGP AS_PATH Verification Based on Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA) Objects", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-14, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-14>.
[I-D.timbru-sidrops-aspa-notation]
Bruijnzeels, T., Borchert, O., Ma, D., and T. de Kock, "Human Readable ASPA Notation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-timbru-sidrops-aspa-notation-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-timbru-sidrops-aspa-notation-01>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4632]
Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC4648]
Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5952]
Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC6487]
Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, DOI 10.17487/RFC6487, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6487>.
[RFC6811]
Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6811>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8205]
Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.
[RFC8208]
Turner, S. and O. Borchert, "BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, and Signature Formats", RFC 8208, DOI 10.17487/RFC8208, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8208>.
[RFC8209]
Reynolds, M., Turner, S., and S. Kent, "A Profile for BGPsec Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests", RFC 8209, DOI 10.17487/RFC8209, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8209>.
[RFC8210]
Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1", RFC 8210, DOI 10.17487/RFC8210, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8210>.
[RFC8259]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8416]
Ma, D., Mandelberg, D., and T. Bruijnzeels, "Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI (SLURM)", RFC 8416, DOI 10.17487/RFC8416, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8416>.

10. Informative References

[RFC1918]
Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC1930]
Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)", BCP 6, RFC 1930, DOI 10.17487/RFC1930, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1930>.
[RFC4193]
Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[RFC6482]
Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.
[RFC6491]
Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA", RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>.
[RFC6598]
Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, DOI 10.17487/RFC6598, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6598>.
[RFC6996]
Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, DOI 10.17487/RFC6996, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6996>.
[RFC8211]
Kent, S. and D. Ma, "Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", RFC 8211, DOI 10.17487/RFC8211, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8211>.

Authors' Addresses

Di Ma
ZDNS
Tim Bruijnzeels
NLnet Labs