RFC 9582 Route Origin Authorization May 2024
Snijders, et al. Standards Track [Page]
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Standards Track
J. Snijders
B. Maddison
M. Lepinski
Carleton College
D. Kong
S. Kent

RFC 9582

A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)


This document defines a standard profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). A ROA is a digitally signed object that provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address block. This document obsoletes RFC 6482.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9582.

1. Introduction

The primary purpose of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is to improve routing security. (See [RFC6480] for more information.) As part of this system, a mechanism is needed to allow entities to verify that an Autonomous System (AS) has been given permission by an IP address block holder to advertise routes to one or more prefixes within that block. A Route Origin Authorization (ROA) provides this function.

The ROA makes use of the template for RPKI digitally signed objects [RFC6488], which defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) wrapper [RFC5652] for the ROA content as well as a generic validation procedure for RPKI signed objects. Therefore, to complete the specification of the ROA (see Section 4 of [RFC6488]), this document defines:

  • The OID that identifies the signed object as being a ROA. (This OID appears within the eContentType in the encapContentInfo object as well as the content-type signed attribute in the signerInfo object.)
  • The ASN.1 syntax for the ROA eContent. (This is the payload that specifies the AS being authorized to originate routes as well as the prefixes to which the AS may originate routes.) The ROA eContent is ASN.1 encoded using the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) [X.690].
  • Additional steps required to validate ROAs (in addition to the validation steps specified in [RFC6488]).

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.

1.2. Changes from RFC 6482

This section summarizes the significant changes between [RFC6482] and the profile described in this document.

  • Clarified the requirements for the IP address and AS identifier X.509 certificate extensions.
  • Strengthened the ASN.1 formal notation and definitions.
  • Incorporated errata for RFC 6482.
  • Added an example ROA eContent payload, and a complete ROA (Appendix A).
  • Specified a canonicalization procedure for the content of ipAddrBlocks.

3. The ROA Content Type

The content-type for a ROA is defined as id-ct-routeOriginAuthz and has the numerical value 1.2.840.113549.

This OID MUST appear within both the eContentType in the encapContentInfo object and the content-type signed attribute in the signerInfo object (see [RFC6488]).

4. The ROA eContent

The content of a ROA identifies a single AS that has been authorized by the address space holder to originate routes and a list of one or more IP address prefixes that will be advertised. If the address space holder needs to authorize multiple ASes to advertise the same set of address prefixes, the holder issues multiple ROAs, one per AS number. A ROA is formally defined as:

  { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
  pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) mod(0)
  id-mod-rpkiROA-2023(75) }


  FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2010 -- in [RFC6268]
    { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1)
      pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2009(58) } ;

ct-routeOriginAttestation CONTENT-TYPE ::=
  { TYPE RouteOriginAttestation
    IDENTIFIED BY id-ct-routeOriginAuthz }

id-ct-routeOriginAuthz OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
  { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1)
    pkcs-9(9) id-smime(16) id-ct(1) routeOriginAuthz(24) }

RouteOriginAttestation ::= SEQUENCE {
  version [0]   INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
  asID          ASID,
  ipAddrBlocks  SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..2)) OF ROAIPAddressFamily }

ASID ::= INTEGER (0..4294967295)

ROAIPAddressFamily ::= SEQUENCE {
  addressFamily ADDRESS-FAMILY.&afi ({AddressFamilySet}),
  addresses     ADDRESS-FAMILY.&Addresses
                               ({AddressFamilySet}{@addressFamily}) }

  &afi          OCTET STRING (SIZE(2)) UNIQUE,
} WITH SYNTAX { AFI &afi ADDRESSES &Addresses }

AddressFamilySet ADDRESS-FAMILY ::=
  { addressFamilyIPv4 | addressFamilyIPv6 }

addressFamilyIPv4 ADDRESS-FAMILY ::=
  { AFI afi-IPv4 ADDRESSES ROAAddressesIPv4 }
addressFamilyIPv6 ADDRESS-FAMILY ::=
  { AFI afi-IPv6 ADDRESSES ROAAddressesIPv6 }

afi-IPv4 OCTET STRING ::= '0001'H
afi-IPv6 OCTET STRING ::= '0002'H

ROAAddressesIPv4 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{ub-IPv4}
ROAAddressesIPv6 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{ub-IPv6}

ub-IPv4 INTEGER ::= 32
ub-IPv6 INTEGER ::= 128

  address       BIT STRING (SIZE(0..ub)),
  maxLength     INTEGER (0..ub) OPTIONAL }


4.1. The version Element

The version number of the RouteOriginAttestation entry MUST be 0.

4.2. The asID Element

The asID element contains the AS number that is authorized to originate routes to the given IP address prefixes.

4.3. The ipAddrBlocks Element

The ipAddrBlocks element encodes the set of IP address prefixes to which the AS is authorized to originate routes. Note that the syntax here is more restrictive than that used in the IP address delegation extension defined in [RFC3779]. That extension can represent arbitrary address ranges, whereas ROAs need to represent only IP prefixes.

4.3.1. Type ROAIPAddressFamily

Within the ROAIPAddressFamily structure, the addressFamily element contains the Address Family Identifier (AFI) of an IP address family. This specification only supports IPv4 and IPv6; therefore, addressFamily MUST be either 0001 or 0002. IPv4 prefixes MUST NOT appear as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (Section of [RFC4291]).

There MUST be only one instance of ROAIPAddressFamily per unique AFI in the ROA. Thus, the ROAIPAddressFamily structure MUST NOT appear more than twice.

The addresses field contains IP prefixes as a sequence of type ROAIPAddress.

4.3.2. Type ROAIPAddress

A ROAIPAddress structure is a sequence containing an address element of type BIT STRING and an optional maxLength element of type INTEGER. The address Element

The address element is of type BIT STRING and represents a single IP address prefix. This field uses the same representation of an IP address prefix as a BIT STRING as the IPAddress type defined in Section of [RFC3779]. The maxLength Element

When present, the maxLength element specifies the maximum length of the IP address prefix that the AS is authorized to advertise. The maxLength element SHOULD NOT be encoded if the maximum length is equal to the prefix length. Certification Authorities SHOULD anticipate that future Relying Parties will become increasingly stringent in considering the presence of superfluous maxLength elements an encoding error.

If present, the maxLength element MUST be:

  • an integer greater than or equal to the length of the accompanying prefix, and
  • less than or equal to the maximum length (in bits) of an IP address in the applicable address family: 32 in the case of IPv4 and 128 in the case of IPv6.

For example, if the IP address prefix is and maxLength is 26, the AS is authorized to advertise any more-specific prefix with a maximum length of 26. In this example, the AS would be authorized to advertise,, or, but not See [RFC9319] for more information on the use of maxLength.

When the maxLength element is not present, the AS is only authorized to advertise the exact prefix specified in the ROAIPAddress structure's address element. Note on Overlapping or Superfluous Information Encoding

Note that a valid ROA may contain an IP address prefix (within a ROAIPAddress element) that is encompassed by another IP address prefix (within a separate ROAIPAddress element). For example, a ROA may contain the prefix with maxLength 26, as well as the prefix with maxLength 28. This ROA would authorize the indicated AS to advertise any prefix beginning with 203.0.113 with a minimum length of 24 and a maximum length of 26, as well as the specific prefix

Additionally, a ROA MAY contain two ROAIPAddress elements, where the IP address prefix is identical in both cases. However, this is NOT RECOMMENDED, because in such a case, the ROAIPAddress element with the shorter maxLength grants no additional privileges to the indicated AS and thus can be omitted without changing the meaning of the ROA.

4.3.3. Canonical Form for ipAddrBlocks

As the data structure described by the ROA ASN.1 module allows for many different ways to represent the same set of IP address information, a canonical form is defined such that every set of IP address information has a unique representation. In order to produce and verify this canonical form, the process described in this section SHOULD be used to ensure that information elements are unique with respect to one another and sorted in ascending order. Certification Authorities SHOULD anticipate that future Relying Parties will impose a strict requirement for the ipAddrBlocks field to be in this canonical form. This canonicalization procedure builds upon the canonicalization procedure specified in Section of [RFC3779].

In order to semantically compare, sort, and deduplicate the contents of the ipAddrBlocks field, each ROAIPAddress element is mapped to an abstract data element composed of four integer values:

The AFI value appearing in the addressFamily field of the containing ROAIPAddressFamily as an integer.
The first IP address of the IP prefix appearing in the ROAIPAddress address field, as a 32-bit (IPv4) or 128-bit (IPv6) integer value.
The length of the IP prefix appearing in the ROAIPAddress address field as an integer value.
The value appearing in the maxLength field of the ROAIPAddress element, if present; otherwise, the above prefix length value.

Thus, the equality or relative order of two ROAIPAddress elements can be tested by comparing their abstract representations. Comparator

The set of ipAddrBlocks is totally ordered. The order of two ipAddrBlocks is determined by the first non-equal comparison in the following list.

  1. Data elements with a lower afi value precede data elements with a higher afi value.
  2. Data elements with a lower addr value precede data elements with a higher addr value.
  3. Data elements with a lower plen value precede data elements with a higher plen value.
  4. Data elements with a lower mlen value precede data elements with a higher mlen value.

Data elements for which all four values compare equal are duplicates of one another. Example Implementations
  • A sorting implementation [roasort-c] in ISO/IEC 9899:1999 ("ANSI C99").
  • A sorting implementation [roasort-rs] in the Rust 2021 Edition.

5. ROA Validation

Before a Relying Party can use a ROA to validate a routing announcement, the Relying Party MUST first validate the ROA. To validate a ROA, the Relying Party MUST perform all the validation checks specified in [RFC6488] as well as the following additional ROA-specific validation steps:

  • The IP address delegation extension [RFC3779] is present in the end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the ROA), and every IP address prefix in the ROA payload is contained within the set of IP addresses specified by the EE certificate's IP address delegation extension.
  • The EE certificate's IP address delegation extension MUST NOT contain "inherit" elements as described in [RFC3779].
  • The Autonomous System identifier delegation extension described in [RFC3779] is not used in ROAs and MUST NOT be present in the EE certificate.
  • The ROA content fully conforms with all requirements specified in Sections 3 and 4.

If any of the above checks fail, the ROA in its entirety MUST be considered invalid and an error SHOULD be logged.

6. Security Considerations

There is no assumption of confidentiality for the data in a ROA; it is anticipated that ROAs will be stored in repositories that are accessible to all ISPs, and perhaps to all Internet users. There is no explicit authentication associated with a ROA, since the PKI used for ROA validation provides authorization but not authentication. Although the ROA is a signed, application-layer object, there is no intent to convey non-repudiation via a ROA.

The purpose of a ROA is to convey authorization for an AS to originate a route to the prefix or prefixes in the ROA. Thus, the integrity of a ROA MUST be established. This ROA specification makes use of the RPKI signed object format; thus, all security considerations discussed in [RFC6488] also apply to ROAs. Additionally, the signed object profile uses the CMS signed message format for integrity; thus, ROAs inherit all security considerations associated with that data structure.

The right of the ROA signer to authorize the target AS to originate routes to the prefix or prefixes is established through the use of the address space and AS number PKI as described in [RFC6480]. Specifically, one MUST verify the signature on the ROA using an X.509 certificate issued under this PKI and check that the prefix or prefixes in the ROA are contained within those in the certificate's IP address delegation extension.

7. IANA Considerations

7.1. SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.

IANA has updated the id-ct-routeOriginAuthz entry in the "SMI Security for S⁠/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549." registry as follows:

Table 1
Decimal Description References
24 id-ct-routeOriginAuthz RFC 9582

7.2. RPKI Signed Objects Registry

IANA has updated the Route Origination Authorization entry in the "RPKI Signed Objects" registry created by [RFC6488] as follows:

Table 2
Name OID Reference
Route Origination Authorization 1.2.840.113549. RFC 9582

7.3. File Extension

IANA has updated the entry for the ROA file extension in the "RPKI Repository Name Schemes" registry created by [RFC6481] as follows:

Table 3
Filename Extension RPKI Object Reference
.roa Route Origination Authorization RFC 9582

7.4. SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.

IANA has allocated the following entry in the "SMI Security for S⁠/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549." registry:

Table 4
Decimal Description References
75 id-mod-rpkiROA-2023 RFC 9582

7.5. Media Type

IANA has updated the media type application/rpki-roa in the "Media Types" registry as follows:

Type name:
Subtype name:
Required parameters:
Optional parameters:
Encoding considerations:
Security considerations:
Carries an RPKI ROA (RFC 9582). This media type contains no active content. See Section 6 of RFC 9582 for further information.
Interoperability considerations:
Published specification:
RFC 9582
Applications that use this media type:
RPKI operators
Additional information:

This media type is a signed object, as defined in [RFC6488], which contains a payload of a list of prefixes and an AS identifier as defined in RFC 9582.
Magic number(s):
File extension(s):
Macintosh file type code(s):
Person & email address to contact for further information:

Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>
Intended usage:
Restrictions on usage:
Change controller:

8. References

8.1. Normative References

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>.
Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, DOI 10.17487/RFC3779, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3779>.
Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
Schaad, J. and S. Turner, "Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 6268, DOI 10.17487/RFC6268, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6268>.
Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481, DOI 10.17487/RFC6481, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6481>.
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>.
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>.
Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", RFC 6488, DOI 10.17487/RFC6488, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6488>.
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>.
ITU-T, "Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, .

8.2. Informative References

Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.
Gilad, Y., Goldberg, S., Sriram, K., Snijders, J., and B. Maddison, "The Use of maxLength in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 185, RFC 9319, DOI 10.17487/RFC9319, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9319>.
Snijders, J., "ROA sorter in C", commit 68969ea, , <https://github.com/job/roasort>.
Maddison, B., "ROA sorter in Rust", commit 023e756, , <https://github.com/benmaddison/roasort>.

Appendix A. Example ROA eContent Payload

An example of a DER-encoded ROA eContent is provided below, with annotation following the "#" character.

$ echo 16i 301802030100003011300F040200023009300703050020010DB8 P \
  | dc | openssl asn1parse -inform DER -i -dump
 0:d=0  hl=2 l=  24 cons: SEQUENCE           # RouteOriginAttestation
 2:d=1  hl=2 l=   3 prim:  INTEGER  :010000  #  asID 65536
 7:d=1  hl=2 l=  17 cons:  SEQUENCE          #  ipAddrBlocks
 9:d=2  hl=2 l=  15 cons:   SEQUENCE         #   ROAIPAddressFamily
11:d=3  hl=2 l=   2 prim:    OCTET STRING    #    addressFamily
   0000 - 00 02                              #     IPv6
15:d=3  hl=2 l=   9 cons:    SEQUENCE        #    addresses
17:d=4  hl=2 l=   7 cons:     SEQUENCE       #     ROAIPAddress
19:d=5  hl=2 l=   5 prim:      BIT STRING    #      2001:db8::/32
    0000 - 00 20 01 0d b8

Below is a complete RPKI ROA signed object, Base64 encoded per [RFC4648].


The object in this appendix has the following properties:

Object size: 1668 octets
Object SHA256 message digest:

CMS signing time: Wed 01 May 2024 00:34:13 +0000

X.509 end-entity certificate
Subject key id: DE145B193FB320B25A744355298C8BF7C2523D22
Authority key id: D67208EA470E9D6DD6654022F553ADC1389AB434
Issuer: CN=86525cd5-44d7-4df9-8079-4a9dcdf26944
Serial: 3
Not before: Wed 01 May 2024 00:34:13 +0000
Not after: Thu 01 May 2025 00:34:13 +0000
IP address delegation: 2001:db8::/32

ROA eContent
asID: 65536
addresses: 2001:db8::/32


The authors wish to thank Theo Buehler, Ties de Kock, Martin Hoffmann, Charles Gardiner, Russ Housley, Jeffrey Haas, Bob Beck, and Tom Harrison for their help and contributions. Additionally, the authors thank Jim Fenton, Vijay Gurbani, Haoyu Song, Rob Austein, Roque Gagliano, Danny McPherson, Sam Weiler, Jasdip Singh, and Murray S. Kucherawy for their careful reviews and helpful comments.

Authors' Addresses

Job Snijders
The Netherlands
Ben Maddison
Cape Town
South Africa
Matthew Lepinski
Carleton College
Derrick Kong
Stephen Kent