BGPsec Operational Considerations
RFC 8207
| Document | Type |
RFC - Best Current Practice
(September 2017; No errata)
Also known as BCP 211
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Randy Bush | ||
| Last updated | 2017-09-27 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ymbk-bgpsec-ops | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Chris Morrow | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2016-11-13) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8207 (Best Current Practice) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
| Send notices to | "Chris Morrow" <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, aretana@cisco.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Bush
Request for Comments: 8207 Internet Initiative Japan
BCP: 211 September 2017
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
BGPsec Operational Considerations
Abstract
Deployment of the BGPsec architecture and protocols has many
operational considerations. This document attempts to collect and
present the most critical and universal. Operational practices are
expected to evolve as BGPsec is formalized and initially deployed.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
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
BCPs 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
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8207.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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.
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RPKI Distribution and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. AS/Router Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Within a Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Considerations for Edge Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Routing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Origin validation based on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI) [RFC6811] is in its early phases. As BGPsec [RFC8205] may
require larger memory and/or more modern CPUs, it expected to be
deployed incrementally over a longer time span. BGPsec is a new
protocol with many operational considerations that this document
attempts to describe. As with most operational practices, they will
likely change over time.
BGPsec relies on widespread propagation of the RPKI [RFC6480]. How
the RPKI is distributed and maintained globally and within an
operator's infrastructure may be different for BGPsec than for origin
validation.
BGPsec needs to be spoken only by an Autonomous System's (AS's)
eBGP-speaking border routers. It is designed so that it can be used
to protect announcements that are originated by resource-constrained
edge routers. This has special operational considerations, see
Section 6.
Different prefixes may have different timing and replay protection
considerations.
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
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. Suggested Reading
It is assumed that the reader understands BGP [RFC4271], BGPsec
[RFC8205], the RPKI [RFC6480], the RPKI Repository Structure
[RFC6481], and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) [RFC6482].
3. RPKI Distribution and Maintenance
The considerations for RPKI objects (Certificates, Certificate
Revocation Lists (CRLs), manifests [RFC6481], and Ghostbusters
Records [RFC6493]), Trust Anchor Locators (TALs) [RFC7730], cache
behaviors of synchronization, and validation from the section on RPKI
Distribution and Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply. Specific
considerations relating to ROA objects do not apply to this document.
4. AS/Router Certificates
As described in [KEY], BGPsec-speaking routers are capable of
generating their own public/private key-pairs and having their
certificates signed and published in the RPKI by the RPKI
Certification Authority (CA) system, and/or are given public/private
key-pairs by the operator.
A site/operator may use a single certificate/key in all their
routers, one certificate/key per router, or any granularity in
between.
A large operator, concerned that a compromise of one router's key
would make other routers vulnerable, may deploy a more complex
certificate/key distribution burden to reduce this exposure.
At the other end of the spectrum, an edge site with one or two
routers may choose to use a single certificate/key.
In anticipation of possible key compromise, a prudent operator SHOULD
pre-provision each router's 'next' key in the RPKI so that there is
no propagation delay for provisioning the new key.
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
5. Within a Network
BGPsec is spoken by edge routers in a network, specifically those
that border other networks/ASes.
In an AS where edge routers speak BGPsec and, therefore, inject
BGPsec paths into the iBGP (internal BGP), Route Reflectors (RRs)
MUST have BGPsec enabled if and only if there are eBGP (external BGP)
speakers in their client cone, i.e., an RR client or the transitive
closure of a client's customers.
A BGPsec-capable router MAY use the data it receives to influence
local policy within its network, see Section 7. In deployment, this
policy should fit into the AS's existing policy, preferences, etc.
This allows a network to incrementally deploy BGPsec-enabled border
routers.
eBGP speakers that face more critical peers or upstreams or
downstreams would be candidates for early deployment. Both securing
one's own announcements and validating received announcements should
be considered in partial deployment.
An operator should be aware that BGPsec, as any other policy change,
can cause traffic shifts in their network. And, as with normal
policy shift practice, a prudent operator has the tools and methods
to predict, measure, modify, etc.
On the other hand, an operator wanting to monitor router loading,
shifts in traffic, etc., might deploy incrementally while watching
those and similar effects.
BGPsec does not sign over communities, so they are not formally
trustable. Additionally, outsourcing verification is not a prudent
security practice. Therefore, an eBGP listener SHOULD NOT strongly
trust unsigned security signaling, such as communities, received
across a trust boundary.
6. Considerations for Edge Sites
An edge site that does not provide transit and trusts its upstream(s)
may only originate a signed prefix announcement and not validate
received announcements.
An operator might need to use hardware with limited resources. In
such cases, BGPsec protocol capability negotiation allows for a
resource-constrained edge router to hold only its own signing key(s)
and sign its announcements, but not receive signed announcements.
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
Therefore, the router would not have to deal with the majority of the
RPKI, potentially saving the need for additional hardware.
As the vast majority of ASes are stubs, and they announce the
majority of prefixes, this allows for simpler and less expensive
incremental deployment. It may also mean that edge sites concerned
with routing security will be attracted to upstreams that support
BGPsec.
7. Routing Policy
As BGPsec-signed paths cannot traverse non-BGPsec topology, partial
BGPsec deployment forms islands of assured paths. As islands grow to
touch each other, they become larger islands.
Unlike origin validation based on the RPKI, BGPsec marks a received
announcement as Valid or Not Valid, there is no explicit NotFound
state. In some sense, an unsigned BGP4 path is the equivalent of
NotFound. How this is used in routing is up to the operator's local
policy, similar to origin validation as in [RFC6811].
As BGPsec will be rolled out over years and does not allow for
intermediate non-signing edge routers, coverage will be spotty for a
long time. This presents a dilemma; should a router evaluating an
inbound BGPsec_PATH as Not Valid be very strict and discard it? On
the other hand, it might be the only path to that prefix, and a very
low local-preference would cause it to be used and propagated only if
there was no alternative. Either choice is reasonable, but we
recommend dropping because of the next point.
Operators should be aware that accepting Not Valid announcements, no
matter the local preference, will often be the equivalent of treating
them as fully Valid. Local preference affects only routes to the
same set of destinations. Consider having a Valid announcement from
neighbor V for prefix 10.0.0.0/16 and a Not Valid announcement for
10.0.666.0/24 from neighbor I. If local policy on the router is not
configured to discard the Not Valid announcement from I, then the
longest match forwarding will send packets to neighbor I no matter
the value of local preference.
Validation of signed paths is usually deployed at the eBGP edge.
Local policy on the eBGP edge MAY convey the validation state of a
BGP-signed path through normal local policy mechanisms, e.g., setting
a BGP community for internal use, or modifying a metric value such as
local-preference or Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED). Some may choose
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
to use the large Local-Pref hammer. Others may choose to let AS path
rule and set their internal metric, which comes after AS path in the
BGP decision process.
As the mildly stochastic timing of RPKI propagation may cause version
skew across routers, an AS Path that does not validate at router R0
might validate at R1. Therefore, signed paths that are Not Valid and
yet propagated (because they are chosen as best path) MUST NOT have
signatures stripped and MUST be signed if sent to external BGPsec
speakers.
This implies that updates which a speaker judges to be Not Valid MAY
be propagated to iBGP peers. Therefore, unless local policy ensures
otherwise, a signed path learned via iBGP may be Not Valid. If
needed, the validation state should be signaled by normal local
policy mechanisms such as communities or metrics.
On the other hand, local policy on the eBGP edge might preclude iBGP
or eBGP announcement of signed AS Paths that are Not Valid.
A BGPsec speaker receiving a path SHOULD perform origin validation
per [RFC6811] and [RFC7115].
A route server is usually 'transparent', i.e., does not insert an AS
into the path so as not to increase the AS hop count, and thereby
affect downstream path choices. But, with BGPsec, a client router R
needs to be able to validate paths that are forward signed to R. But
the sending router cannot generate signatures to all the possible
clients. Therefore, a BGPsec-aware route server needs to validate
the incoming BGPsec_PATH and to forward updates that can be validated
by clients that must, therefore, know the route server's AS. This
implies that the route server creates signatures per client including
its own AS in the BGPsec_PATH, forward signing to each client AS, see
[RFC8205]. The route server uses a pCount of 0 to not increase the
effective AS hop count, thereby retaining the intent of
'transparency'.
If it is known that a BGPsec neighbor is a transparent route server,
or otherwise may validly use a pCount of 0 (e.g., see [RFC8206]), the
router SHOULD be configured to accept and process a received pCount
of 0. Routers MUST disallow a pCount of 0 by default.
To prevent exposure of the internals of the BGP confederations
[RFC5065], a BGPsec speaker exporting to a non-member removes all
intra-confederation Secure_Path Segments. Therefore, signing within
the confederation will not cause external confusion even if non-
unique private ASes are used.
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
8. Notes
For protection from attacks replaying BGP data on the order of a day
or longer old, rekeying routers with new keys (previously)
provisioned in the RPKI is sufficient. For one approach, see
[ROLLOVER].
A router that once negotiated (and/or sent) BGPsec should not be
expected to always do so.
Like the DNS, the Global RPKI presents only a loosely consistent
view, depending on timing, updating, fetching, etc. Thus, one cache
or router may have different data about a particular prefix or router
than another cache or router. There is no 'fix' for this, it is the
nature of distributed data with distributed caches.
Operators who manage certificates SHOULD have RPKI Ghostbuster
Records (see [RFC6493]), signed indirectly by end entity
certificates, for those certificates on which others' routing depends
for certificate and/or ROA validation.
Operators should be aware of impending algorithm transitions, which
will be rare and slow-paced, see [RFC6916]. They should work with
their vendors to ensure support for new algorithms.
As a router must evaluate certificates and ROAs that are time
dependent, routers' clocks MUST be correct to a tolerance of
approximately an hour. The common approach is for operators to
deploy servers that provide time service, such as [RFC5905], to
client routers.
If a router has reason to believe its clock is seriously incorrect,
e.g., it has a time earlier than 2011, it SHOULD NOT attempt to
validate incoming updates. It SHOULD defer validation until it
believes it is within reasonable time tolerance.
9. Security Considerations
This document describes operational considerations for the deployment
of BGPsec. The security considerations for BGPsec are described in
[RFC8205].
10. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[RFC6493] Bush, R., "The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Ghostbusters Record", RFC 6493, DOI 10.17487/RFC6493,
February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6493>.
[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>.
[RFC7115] Bush, R., "Origin Validation Operation Based on the
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 185,
RFC 7115, DOI 10.17487/RFC7115, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7115>.
[RFC7730] Huston, G., Weiler, S., Michaelson, G., and S. Kent,
"Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor
Locator", RFC 7730, DOI 10.17487/RFC7730, January 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7730>.
[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>.
[RFC8205] Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol
Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September
2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.
11.2. Informative References
[KEY] Bush, R., Turner, S., and K. Patel, "Router Keying for
BGPsec", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-13,
April 2017.
[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 Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
[RFC5065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5065, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5065>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6916] Gagliano, R., Kent, S., and S. Turner, "Algorithm Agility
Procedure for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", BCP 182, RFC 6916, DOI 10.17487/RFC6916, April
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6916>.
[RFC8206] George, W. and S. Murphy, "BGPsec Considerations for
Autonomous System (AS) Migration", RFC 8206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8206, September 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8206>.
[ROLLOVER] Weis, B., Gagliano, R., and K. Patel, "BGPsec Router
Certificate Rollover", Work in Progess,
draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02, August 2017.
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 8207 BGPsec Operational Considerations September 2017
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Thomas King, Arnold Nipper, Alvaro Retana,
and the BGPsec design group.
Author's Address
Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
United States of America
Email: randy@psg.com
Bush Best Current Practice [Page 10]