Network Working Group M. Candela
Internet-Draft NTT
Intended status: Standards Track R. Bush
Expires: March 4, 2021 IIJ & Arrcus
W. Kumari
Google
August 31, 2020
Finding and Using Geofeed Data
draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-00
Abstract
This document describes how to find and to prudently use 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 March 4, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Candela, et al. Expires March 4, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds August 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Geofeed Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. inet-num: Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Authenticating Geofeed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Scurity Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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. Additionally, 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), [RFC2622]
inet-num: class, [INETNUM] to refer to geofeed data, and how to
prudently use them.
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 prefix '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 geofeed
file given an IP address.
Candela, et al. Expires March 4, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds August 2020
This document also suggests optional data for geofeed files to
provide stronger authenticity to the data.
3. inet-num: Class
RPSL, [RFC2622], as used by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs),
has been augmented with the inet-num: class [INETNUM].
Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL Geofeed
attribute in the inet-num: class. Until such time, this document
defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains a
URL referring to a public web page containing a geofeed file. The
format MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed " followed by a
URL which will vary.
inet-num: 192.0.2.0/24 #example
remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed/
4. Authenticating Geofeed Data
The question arises on whether a particular geofeed data set is
authentic, i.e. authorized by the 'owner' of the IP address space and
is authoritative in some sense. The inet-num: which points to the
geofeed file provides some authentication. Unfortunately the RPSL in
many repositories is weakly authenticated at best.
An optional authenticator MAY be appended to a geofeed file. It
would essentially be a digest of the main body of the file signed by
the private key of the relevant RPKI certificate for the covering
prefix. One needs a format that bundles the relevant RPKI
certificate with the signature and the digest of the geofeed text.
Borrowing detached signatures from [RFC5485], after text file
canonicalization (Sec 2.2), the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
[RFC3852] would be used to create a detached DER encoded signature
which is then BASE64 encoded and line wrapped to 72 or fewer
characters.
As the signer would need to specify the covered RPKI resources
relevant to the signature, the RPKI certificate covering the inet-
num: object's prefix would be included in the [RFC3852] CMS
SignedData certificates field.
Identifying the private key associated with the certificate, and
getting the department with the 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.
Candela, et al. Expires March 4, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds August 2020
Until [RFC8805] is updated to formally define such an appendix, it
may be 'hidden' as a series of "#" comments at the end of the geofeed
file.
# RPKI Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
# MIIGugYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIDTALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwKQYLKoZIhvcNAQkQARig
# GgQYMBYCAhzRMBAwDgQCAAoIIEuDCCBLQwggOcoAMCAQICAwDe4TANBgkqhkiG
# 9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQ0VBREI5Mzk2MTFDOTFGMDI3REI1NjNGQ0NDNUI5
# REUxMB4XDTE5MTIxOTE4NDMDAxMDEwM1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoNjdBMDlDM0Ux
# RkE2MDhCRjI0NjkzQjU0NTRDREOTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCC
# AQoCggEBALqpRjOpeHKFr4RuEo86/Pw7LZlkQVBeBI5UrcLSMjPttLlFz02dD3
# hNA2EnlMCPmMbh0kwCmsNsJ0+nbKyZJwbRmqpcnTJjndjxGY+ZnVkXPpd4/S0o
# dvJi72LsUOlK4JVRI+wPTU0qqvBOgwYcTtTPEesyR/3ZJpA9sLPAQHUscr9sGH
# 3DE0j0Qh2ub4pr6mR63497EwSLZYK5Q7xBAiYo0jfaOG3Ni7eqKfgvLyJe+bPD
# YMa4uuKhSYedIy+ubDnxg1wNZ8lgGF9IECAwEAAaOCAc8wggHLMB0GA1UdDgQW
# BBRnoJw+H6YIvyRpO1RYBQHSMEGDAWgBQjJt5c6tuTlhHJHwJ9tWP8zFud4TAY
# BgNVHSABAf8EDjAMMAoGCCA1UdHwRJMEcwRaBDoEGGP3JzeW5jOi8vY2EwLnJw
# a2kubmV0L3Jwa2kvUkduZXNVlSeVI4Q2ZiVmpfTXhibmVFLmNybDBbBggrBgEF
# BQcBAQRPME0wSwYIKwYBBQOi8vY2EwLnJwa2kubmV0L3Jwa2kvYWx0Q0EvSXli
# ZVhPcmJrNVlSeVI4Q2ZiVmcjAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCB4AwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEL
# BIGBMH8wSwYIKwYBBQUHMAY2EwLnJwa2kubmV0L3Jwa2kvUkduZXQvWjZDY1Bo
# LW1DTDhrYVR0VVdBVU1iY1BggrBgEFBQcwDYYkaHR0cHM6Ly9jYTAucnBraS5u
# ZXQvcnJkcC9ub3RpZnkueGBwEHAQH/BBAwDjAMBAIAATAGAwQARaYLMA0GCSqG
# SIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQC+Cx9LN8dxjFFcohfRBRMnraXZjKhAaccKZ1vOPaG7iU
# lz6q1k37fOFuTSn7/eX/j9UZBMwQOQGZF87bGT3+Sh7qQCV0WOqB/V+Jknqrzk
# n9mL+ZwPw7fgVw4I8xBD7mVQoZhTPiGDlEUhhM7dP0moBNV8YdfLrB5fV1byWJ
# sE+LKDo3I+fJEt7imDoOgbqKWSS+1bpTTB5+V1Qc1rcKyZK7rp8tmsEQCxe2JM
# EWPML3doO16M8ctjGUCXxT8dRhSO47Z9e1drPCsd+rMYIBqjCCAaYCAQOAFGeg
# nD4fpgi/JGk7VFgFDG3ENNAwQCAaBrMBoGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzENBgsqhkiG9w0B
# CRABGDAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMTg0NjE0WjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgfEXq+Mbk
# 85Ro9ZcGTfrGLPRIpiqRIzDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAIa8unm8JGfiiTHXY
# HIlNNmZ8zIpR+AkWqZIpdRMgBzWxHyBVsMlO1zce441FCJBgEr+TR36/uGvNes
# tV/35qkeykYxvBPhylSrwnKt6HHzfcE9wT6BIpiQPGlUdMGgguUisG+hSaoZPG
# w+nU1q1VSZDvw/YVpyaWAu99SjHTxpIBdwp3avpZ84Daxy4h4v084xFvjnqAAg
# ukYLIfBPdZiuvtLaLR/vjZR4s7mR4L4SNj0WSNPYKwad9cs+ozQpymByDL8VW8
# pUXCTD5sPYzBKsTpAbiDsQ==
# END Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
5. Operational Considerations
Geofeed data SHOULD be fetched using https [RFC2818].
When using data from a geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside of
the inet-num: object's prefix range.
If no data in a geofeed file are signed per Section 4, then multiple
inet-num:s MAY refer to the same geofeed file, and the consumer MUST
Candela, et al. Expires March 4, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds August 2020
use only those covered by the prefix in the inet-num: they have
followed.
An entity fetching geofeed data through these mechanisms MUST NOT do
frequent real-time look-ups to prevent load on RPSL servers. And do
not fetch at midnight, because everyone else may.
6. Scurity Considerations
It would be 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 would allow spoofing of inet-num: objects
pointing to malicious geofeed files. Section 4 suggests an overly
complex method for stronger authentication based on the RPKI.
7. IANA Considerations
No action is requested of the IANA.
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Rob Austein and Russ Housley for CMS and detached signature
clue. Also to Erik Kline who was too shy to agree to co-authorship.
9. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC2622] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
"Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2622, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2622>.
Candela, et al. Expires March 4, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Finding Geofeeds August 2020
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC3852] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
RFC 3852, DOI 10.17487/RFC3852, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3852>.
[RFC5485] Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft
Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>.
[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>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Massimo Candela
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp 2132 WT
Netherlands
Email: massimo@ntt.net
Randy Bush
IIJ & Arrcus
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
United States of America
Email: randy@psg.com
Warren Kumari
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: warren@kumari.net
Candela, et al. Expires March 4, 2021 [Page 6]