RFC 8205: - The RFC Archive

RFC Home	Full RFC Index	Recent RFCs	RFC Standards	Best Current Practice	RFC Errata	1 April RFC

IETF RFC 8205

Last modified on Thursday, September 28th, 2017

Permanent link to RFC 8205

Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8205

Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8205 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Lepinski, Ed. Request for Comments: 8205 NCF Category: Standards Track K. Sriram, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 NIST September 2017 BGPsec Protocol Specification Abstract This document describes BGPsec, an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that provides security for the path of Autonomous Systems (ASes) through which a BGP UPDATE message passes. BGPsec is implemented via an optional non-transitive BGP path attribute that carries digital signatures produced by each AS that propagates the UPDATE message. The digital signatures provide confidence that every AS on the path of ASes listed in the UPDATE message has explicitly authorized the advertisement of the route. 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/RFC 8205. 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 (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. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 1 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. BGPsec Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. The BGPsec Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Negotiating BGPsec Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. The BGPsec_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Secure_Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Signature_Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. BGPsec UPDATE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. General Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Constructing the BGPsec_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. Processing Instructions for Confederation Members . . . . 18 4.4. Reconstructing the AS_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. Processing a Received BGPsec UPDATE Message . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1. Overview of BGPsec Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2. Validation Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Algorithms and Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.1. Algorithm Suite Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.2. Considerations for the SKI Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.3. Extensibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. Operations and Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1. Capability Negotiation Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.2. Preventing Misuse of pCount=0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.3. Early Termination of Signature Verification . . . . . . . 30 7.4. Non-deterministic Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . 30 7.5. Private AS Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.6. Robustness Considerations for Accessing RPKI Data . . . . 32 7.7. Graceful Restart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.8. Robustness of Secret Random Number in ECDSA . . . . . . . 32 7.9. Incremental/Partial Deployment Considerations . . . . . . 33 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8.1. Security Guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8.2. On the Removal of BGPsec Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8.3. Mitigation of Denial-of-Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . 36 8.4. Additional Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 2 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 1. Introduction This document describes BGPsec, a mechanism for providing path security for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC 4271] route advertisements. That is, a BGP speaker who receives a valid BGPsec UPDATE message has cryptographic assurance that the advertised route has the following property: every Autonomous System (AS) on the path of ASes listed in the UPDATE message has explicitly authorized the advertisement of the route to the subsequent AS in the path. This document specifies an optional (non-transitive) BGP path attribute, BGPsec_PATH. It also describes how a BGPsec-compliant BGP speaker (referred to hereafter as a BGPsec speaker) can generate, propagate, and validate BGP UPDATE messages containing this attribute to obtain the above assurances. BGPsec is intended to be used to supplement BGP origin validation [RFC 6483] [RFC 6811], and when used in conjunction with origin validation, it is possible to prevent a wide variety of route hijacking attacks against BGP. BGPsec relies on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) certificates that attest to the allocation of AS number and IP address resources. (For more information on the RPKI, see RFC 6480 [RFC 6480] and the documents referenced therein.) Any BGPsec speaker who wishes to send, to external (eBGP) peers, BGP UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH needs to possess a private key associated with an RPKI router certificate [RFC 8209] that corresponds to the BGPsec speaker's AS number. Note, however, that a BGPsec speaker does not need such a certificate in order to validate received UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute (see Section 5.2). 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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. BGPsec Negotiation This document defines a BGP capability [RFC 5492] that allows a BGP speaker to advertise to a neighbor the ability to send or to receive BGPsec UPDATE messages (i.e., UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute). Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 3 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 2.1. The BGPsec Capability This capability has capability code 7. The capability length for this capability MUST be set to 3. The 3 octets of the capability format are specified in Figure 1. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +---------------------------------------+ | Version | Dir | Unassigned | +---------------------------------------+ | | +------ AFI -----+ | | +---------------------------------------+ Figure 1: BGPsec Capability Format The first 4 bits of the first octet indicate the version of BGPsec for which the BGP speaker is advertising support. This document defines only BGPsec version 0 (all 4 bits set to 0). Other versions of BGPsec may be defined in future documents. A BGPsec speaker MAY advertise support for multiple versions of BGPsec by including multiple versions of the BGPsec capability in its BGP OPEN message. The fifth bit of the first octet is a Direction bit, which indicates whether the BGP speaker is advertising the capability to send BGPsec UPDATE messages or receive BGPsec UPDATE messages. The BGP speaker sets this bit to 0 to indicate the capability to receive BGPsec UPDATE messages. The BGP speaker sets this bit to 1 to indicate the capability to send BGPsec UPDATE messages. The remaining 3 bits of the first octet are unassigned and for future use. These bits are set to 0 by the sender of the capability and ignored by the receiver of the capability. The second and third octets contain the 16-bit Address Family Identifier (AFI), which indicates the address family for which the BGPsec speaker is advertising support for BGPsec. This document only specifies BGPsec for use with two address families, IPv4 and IPv6, with AFI values 1 and 2, respectively [IANA-AF]. BGPsec for use with other address families may be specified in future documents. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 4 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 2.2. Negotiating BGPsec Support In order to indicate that a BGP speaker is willing to send BGPsec UPDATE messages (for a particular address family), a BGP speaker sends the BGPsec capability (see Section 2.1) with the Direction bit (the fifth bit of the first octet) set to 1. In order to indicate that the speaker is willing to receive BGP UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute (for a particular address family), a BGP speaker sends the BGPsec capability with the Direction bit set to 0. In order to advertise the capability to both send and receive BGPsec UPDATE messages, the BGP speaker sends two copies of the BGPsec capability (one with the Direction bit set to 0 and one with the Direction bit set to 1). Similarly, if a BGP speaker wishes to use BGPsec with two different address families (i.e., IPv4 and IPv6) over the same BGP session, then the speaker includes two instances of this capability (one for each address family) in the BGP OPEN message. A BGP speaker MUST NOT announce BGPsec capability if it does not support the BGP multiprotocol extension [RFC 4760]. Additionally, a BGP speaker MUST NOT advertise the capability of BGPsec support for a particular AFI unless it has also advertised the multiprotocol extension capability for the same AFI [RFC 4760]. In a BGPsec peering session, a peer is permitted to send UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute if and only if: o The given peer sent the BGPsec capability for a particular version of BGPsec and a particular address family with the Direction bit set to 1, and o The other (receiving) peer sent the BGPsec capability for the same version of BGPsec and the same address family with the Direction bit set to 0. In such a session, it can be said that the use of the particular version of BGPsec has been negotiated for a particular address family. Traditional BGP UPDATE messages (i.e., unsigned, containing the AS_PATH attribute) MAY be sent within a session regardless of whether or not the use of BGPsec is successfully negotiated. However, if BGPsec is not successfully negotiated, then BGP UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute MUST NOT be sent. This document defines the behavior of implementations in the case where BGPsec version 0 is the only version that has been successfully negotiated. Any future document that specifies additional versions of BGPsec will need to specify behavior in the case that support for multiple versions is negotiated. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 5 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 BGPsec cannot provide meaningful security guarantees without support for 4-byte AS numbers. Therefore, any BGP speaker that announces the BGPsec capability, MUST also announce the capability for 4-byte AS support [RFC 6793]. If a BGP speaker sends the BGPsec capability but not the 4-byte AS support capability, then BGPsec has not been successfully negotiated, and UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute MUST NOT be sent within such a session. 3. The BGPsec_PATH Attribute The BGPsec_PATH attribute is an optional non-transitive BGP path attribute. This document registers an attribute type code for this attribute: BGPsec_PATH (see Section 9). The BGPsec_PATH attribute carries the secured information regarding the path of ASes through which an UPDATE message passes. This includes the digital signatures used to protect the path information. The UPDATE messages that contain the BGPsec_PATH attribute are referred to as "BGPsec UPDATE messages". The BGPsec_PATH attribute replaces the AS_PATH attribute in a BGPsec UPDATE message. That is, UPDATE messages that contain the BGPsec_PATH attribute MUST NOT contain the AS_PATH attribute, and vice versa. The BGPsec_PATH attribute is made up of several parts. The high-level diagram in Figure 2 provides an overview of the structure of the BGPsec_PATH attribute. ("SKI" as used in Figure 2 means "Subject Key Identifier".) Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 6 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 +---------------------------------------------------------+ | +-----------------+ | | | Secure_Path | | | +-----------------+ | | | pCount X | | | | Flags X | | | | AS X | | | | pCount Y | | | | Flags Y | | | | AS Y | | | | ... | | | +-----------------+ | | | | +---------------------+ +---------------------+ | | | Signature_Block 1 | | Signature_Block 2 | | | +---------------------+ +---------------------+ | | | Algorithm Suite 1 | | Algorithm Suite 2 | | | | SKI X1 | | SKI X2 | | | | Signature X1 | | Signature X2 | | | | SKI Y1 | | SKI Y2 | | | | Signature Y1 | | Signature Y2 | | | | ... | | .... | | | +---------------------+ +---------------------+ | | | +---------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 2: High-Level Diagram of the BGPsec_PATH Attribute Figure 3 provides the specification of the format for the BGPsec_PATH attribute. +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Secure_Path (variable) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Sequence of one or two Signature_Blocks (variable) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 3: BGPsec_PATH Attribute Format The Secure_Path contains AS path information for the BGPsec UPDATE message. This is logically equivalent to the information that is contained in a non-BGPsec AS_PATH attribute. The information in the Secure_Path is used by BGPsec speakers in the same way that information from the AS_PATH is used by non-BGPsec speakers. The format of the Secure_Path is described below in Section 3.1. The BGPsec_PATH attribute will contain one or two Signature_Blocks, each of which corresponds to a different algorithm suite. Each of Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 7 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 the Signature_Blocks will contain a Signature Segment for each AS number (i.e., Secure_Path Segment) in the Secure_Path. In the most common case, the BGPsec_PATH attribute will contain only a single Signature_Block. However, in order to enable a transition from an old algorithm suite to a new algorithm suite (without a flag day), it will be necessary to include two Signature_Blocks (one for the old algorithm suite and one for the new algorithm suite) during the transition period. (See Section 6.1 for more discussion of algorithm transitions.) The format of the Signature_Blocks is described below in Section 3.2. 3.1. Secure_Path A detailed description of the Secure_Path information in the BGPsec_PATH attribute is provided here. The specification for the Secure_Path field is provided in Figures 4 and 5. +-----------------------------------------------+ | Secure_Path Length (2 octets) | +-----------------------------------------------+ | One or more Secure_Path Segments (variable) | +-----------------------------------------------+ Figure 4: Secure_Path Format The Secure_Path Length contains the length (in octets) of the entire Secure_Path (including the 2 octets used to express this length field). As explained below, each Secure_Path Segment is 6 octets long. Note that this means the Secure_Path Length is two greater than six times the number of Secure_Path Segments (i.e., the number of AS numbers in the path). The Secure_Path contains one Secure_Path Segment (see Figure 5) for each AS in the path to the originating AS of the prefix specified in the UPDATE message. (Note: Repeated ASes are "compressed out" using the pCount field, as discussed below.) +------------------------------------------------------+ | pCount (1 octet) | +------------------------------------------------------+ | Confed_Segment flag (1 bit) | Unassigned (7 bits) | (Flags) +------------------------------------------------------+ | AS Number (4 octets) | +------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 5: Secure_Path Segment Format Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 8 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 The AS Number (in Figure 5) is the AS number of the BGP speaker that added this Secure_Path Segment to the BGPsec_PATH attribute. (See Section 4 for more information on populating this field.) The pCount field contains the number of repetitions of the associated AS number that the signature covers. This field enables a BGPsec speaker to mimic the semantics of prepending multiple copies of their AS to the AS_PATH without requiring the speaker to generate multiple signatures. Note that Section 9.1.2.2 ("Breaking Ties (Phase 2)") in [RFC 4271] mentions the "number of AS numbers" in the AS_PATH attribute that is used in the route selection process. This metric (number of AS numbers) is the same as the AS path length obtained in BGPsec by summing the pCount values in the BGPsec_PATH attribute. The pCount field is also useful in managing route servers (see Section 4.2), AS confederations (see Section 4.3), and AS Number migrations (see [RFC 8206] for details). The leftmost (i.e., the most significant) bit of the Flags field in Figure 5 is the Confed_Segment flag. The Confed_Segment flag is set to 1 to indicate that the BGPsec speaker that constructed this Secure_Path Segment is sending the UPDATE message to a peer AS within the same AS confederation [RFC 5065]. (That is, a sequence of consecutive Confed_Segment flags are set in a BGPsec UPDATE message whenever, in a non-BGPsec UPDATE message, an AS_PATH segment of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE occurs.) In all other cases, the Confed_Segment flag is set to 0. The remaining 7 bits of the Flags field are unassigned. They MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver. Note, however, that the signature is computed over all 8 bits of the Flags field. As stated earlier in Section 2.2, BGPsec peering requires that the peering ASes MUST each support 4-byte AS numbers. Currently assigned 2-byte AS numbers are converted into 4-byte AS numbers by setting the two high-order octets of the 4-octet field to 0 [RFC 6793]. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 9 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 3.2. Signature_Block A detailed description of the Signature_Blocks in the BGPsec_PATH attribute is provided here using Figures 6 and 7. +---------------------------------------------+ | Signature_Block Length (2 octets) | +---------------------------------------------+ | Algorithm Suite Identifier (1 octet) | +---------------------------------------------+ | Sequence of Signature Segments (variable) | +---------------------------------------------+ Figure 6: Signature_Block Format The Signature_Block Length in Figure 6 is the total number of octets in the Signature_Block (including the 2 octets used to express this length field). The Algorithm Suite Identifier is a 1-octet identifier specifying the digest algorithm and digital signature algorithm used to produce the digital signature in each Signature Segment. An IANA registry of algorithm suite identifiers for use in BGPsec is specified in the BGPsec algorithms document [RFC 8208]. A Signature_Block in Figure 6 has exactly one Signature Segment (see Figure 7) for each Secure_Path Segment in the Secure_Path portion of the BGPsec_PATH attribute (that is, one Signature Segment for each distinct AS on the path for the prefix in the UPDATE message). +---------------------------------------------+ | Subject Key Identifier (SKI) (20 octets) | +---------------------------------------------+ | Signature Length (2 octets) | +---------------------------------------------+ | Signature (variable) | +---------------------------------------------+ Figure 7: Signature Segment Format The Subject Key Identifier (SKI) field in Figure 7 contains the value in the Subject Key Identifier extension of the RPKI router certificate [RFC 6487] that is used to verify the signature (see Section 5 for details on the validity of BGPsec UPDATE messages). The SKI field has a fixed size of 20 octets. See Section 6.2 for considerations for the SKI size. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 10 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 The Signature Length field contains the size (in octets) of the value in the Signature field of the Signature Segment. The Signature field in Figure 7 contains a digital signature that protects the prefix and the BGPsec_PATH attribute (see Sections 4 and 5 for details on signature generation and validation, respectively). 4. BGPsec UPDATE Messages Section 4.1 provides general guidance on the creation of BGPsec UPDATE messages -- that is, UPDATE messages containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute. Section 4.2 specifies how a BGPsec speaker generates the BGPsec_PATH attribute to include in a BGPsec UPDATE message. Section 4.3 contains special processing instructions for members of an AS confederation [RFC 5065]. A BGPsec speaker that is not a member of such a confederation MUST NOT set the Confed_Segment flag in its Secure_Path Segment (i.e., leave the Confed_Segment flag at the default value of 0) in all BGPsec UPDATE messages it sends. Section 4.4 contains instructions for reconstructing the AS_PATH attribute in cases where a BGPsec speaker receives an UPDATE message with a BGPsec_PATH attribute and wishes to propagate the UPDATE message to a peer who does not support BGPsec. 4.1. General Guidance The information protected by the signature on a BGPsec UPDATE message includes the AS number of the peer to whom the UPDATE message is being sent. Therefore, if a BGPsec speaker wishes to send a BGPsec UPDATE message to multiple BGP peers, it MUST generate a separate BGPsec UPDATE message for each unique peer AS to whom the UPDATE message is sent. A BGPsec UPDATE message MUST advertise a route to only a single prefix. This is because a BGPsec speaker receiving an UPDATE message with multiple prefixes would be unable to construct a valid BGPsec UPDATE message (i.e., valid path signatures) containing a subset of the prefixes in the received update. If a BGPsec speaker wishes to advertise routes to multiple prefixes, then it MUST generate a separate BGPsec UPDATE message for each prefix. Additionally, a BGPsec UPDATE message MUST use the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute [RFC 4760] to encode the prefix. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 11 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 The BGPsec_PATH attribute and the AS_PATH attribute are mutually exclusive. That is, any UPDATE message containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute MUST NOT contain the AS_PATH attribute. The information that would be contained in the AS_PATH attribute is instead conveyed in the Secure_Path portion of the BGPsec_PATH attribute. In order to create or add a new signature to a BGPsec UPDATE message with a given algorithm suite, the BGPsec speaker MUST possess a private key suitable for generating signatures for this algorithm suite. Additionally, this private key must correspond to the public key in a valid RPKI end entity certificate whose AS number resource extension includes the BGPsec speaker's AS number [RFC 8209]. Note also that new signatures are only added to a BGPsec UPDATE message when a BGPsec speaker is generating an UPDATE message to send to an external peer (i.e., when the AS number of the peer is not equal to the BGPsec speaker's own AS number). The RPKI enables the legitimate holder of IP address prefix(es) to issue a signed object, called a Route Origin Authorization (ROA), that authorizes a given AS to originate routes to a given set of prefixes (see RFC 6482 [RFC 6482]). It is expected that most Relying Parties (RPs) will utilize BGPsec in tandem with origin validation (see RFC 6483 [RFC 6483] and RFC 6811 [RFC 6811]). Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that a BGPsec speaker only originate a BGPsec UPDATE message advertising a route for a given prefix if there exists a valid ROA authorizing the BGPsec speaker's AS to originate routes to this prefix. If a BGPsec router has received only a non-BGPsec UPDATE message containing the AS_PATH attribute (instead of the BGPsec_PATH attribute) from a peer for a given prefix, then it MUST NOT attach a BGPsec_PATH attribute when it propagates the UPDATE message. (Note that a BGPsec router may also receive a non-BGPsec UPDATE message from an internal peer without the AS_PATH attribute, i.e., with just the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) in it. In that case, the prefix is originating from that AS, and if it is selected for advertisement, the BGPsec speaker SHOULD attach a BGPsec_PATH attribute and send a signed route (for that prefix) to its external BGPsec-speaking peers.) Conversely, if a BGPsec router has received a BGPsec UPDATE message (with the BGPsec_PATH attribute) from a peer for a given prefix and it chooses to propagate that peer's route for the prefix, then it SHOULD propagate the route as a BGPsec UPDATE message containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 12 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 Note that removing BGPsec signatures (i.e., propagating a route advertisement without the BGPsec_PATH attribute) has significant security ramifications. (See Section 8 for a discussion of the security ramifications of removing BGPsec signatures.) Therefore, when a route advertisement is received via a BGPsec UPDATE message, propagating the route advertisement without the BGPsec_PATH attribute is NOT RECOMMENDED, unless the message is sent to a peer that did not advertise the capability to receive BGPsec UPDATE messages (see Section 4.4). Furthermore, note that when a BGPsec speaker propagates a route advertisement with the BGPsec_PATH attribute, it is not attesting to the validation state of the UPDATE message it received. (See Section 8 for more discussion of the security semantics of BGPsec signatures.) If the BGPsec speaker is producing an UPDATE message that would, in the absence of BGPsec, contain an AS_SET (e.g., the BGPsec speaker is performing proxy aggregation), then the BGPsec speaker MUST NOT include the BGPsec_PATH attribute. In such a case, the BGPsec speaker MUST remove any existing BGPsec_PATH in the received advertisement(s) for this prefix and produce a traditional (non-BGPsec) UPDATE message. It should be noted that BCP 172 [RFC 6472] recommends against the use of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in the AS_PATH of BGP UPDATE messages. The case where the BGPsec speaker sends a BGPsec UPDATE message to an iBGP (internal BGP) peer is quite simple. When originating a new route advertisement and sending it to a BGPsec-capable iBGP peer, the BGPsec speaker omits the BGPsec_PATH attribute. When originating a new route advertisement and sending it to a non-BGPsec iBGP peer, the BGPsec speaker includes an empty AS_PATH attribute in the UPDATE message. (An empty AS_PATH attribute is one whose length field contains the value 0 [RFC 4271].) When a BGPsec speaker chooses to forward a BGPsec UPDATE message to an iBGP peer, the BGPsec_PATH attribute SHOULD NOT be removed, unless the peer doesn't support BGPsec. In the case when an iBGP peer doesn't support BGPsec, then a BGP UPDATE message with AS_PATH is reconstructed from the BGPsec UPDATE message and then forwarded (see Section 4.4). In particular, when forwarding to a BGPsec-capable iBGP (or eBGP) peer, the BGPsec_PATH attribute SHOULD NOT be removed even in the case where the BGPsec UPDATE message has not been successfully validated. (See Section 5 for more information on validation and Section 8 for the security ramifications of removing BGPsec signatures.) Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 13 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 All BGPsec UPDATE messages MUST conform to BGP's maximum message size. If the resulting message exceeds the maximum message size, then the guidelines in Section 9.2 of RFC 4271 [RFC 4271] MUST be followed. 4.2. Constructing the BGPsec_PATH Attribute When a BGPsec speaker receives a BGPsec UPDATE message containing a BGPsec_PATH attribute (with one or more signatures) from an (internal or external) peer, it may choose to propagate the route advertisement by sending it to its other (internal or external) peers. When sending the route advertisement to an internal BGPsec-speaking peer, the BGPsec_PATH attribute SHALL NOT be modified. When sending the route advertisement to an external BGPsec-speaking peer, the following procedures are used to form or update the BGPsec_PATH attribute. To generate the BGPsec_PATH attribute on the outgoing UPDATE message, the BGPsec speaker first generates a new Secure_Path Segment. Note that if the BGPsec speaker is not the origin AS and there is an existing BGPsec_PATH attribute, then the BGPsec speaker prepends its new Secure_Path Segment (places in first position) onto the existing Secure_Path. The AS number in this Secure_Path Segment MUST match the AS number in the Subject field of the RPKI router certificate that will be used to verify the digital signature constructed by this BGPsec speaker (see Section 3.1.1 in [RFC 8209] and RFC 6487 [RFC 6487]). The pCount field of the Secure_Path Segment is typically set to the value 1. However, a BGPsec speaker may set the pCount field to a value greater than 1. Setting the pCount field to a value greater than 1 has the same semantics as repeating an AS number multiple times in the AS_PATH of a non-BGPsec UPDATE message (e.g., for traffic engineering purposes). To prevent unnecessary processing load in the validation of BGPsec signatures, a BGPsec speaker SHOULD NOT produce multiple consecutive Secure_Path Segments with the same AS number. This means that to achieve the semantics of prepending the same AS number k times, a BGPsec speaker SHOULD produce a single Secure_Path Segment -- with a pCount of k -- and a single corresponding Signature Segment. A route server that participates in the BGP control plane but does not act as a transit AS in the data plane may choose to set pCount to 0. This option enables the route server to participate in BGPsec and obtain the associated security guarantees without increasing the length of the AS path. (Note that BGPsec speakers Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 14 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 compute the length of the AS path by summing the pCount values in the BGPsec_PATH attribute; see Section 5.) However, when a route server sets the pCount value to 0, it still inserts its AS number into the Secure_Path Segment, as this information is needed to validate the signature added by the route server. See [RFC 8206] for a discussion of setting pCount to 0 to facilitate AS Number migration. Also, see Section 4.3 for the use of pCount=0 in the context of an AS confederation. See Section 7.2 for operational guidance for configuring a BGPsec router for setting pCount=0 and/or accepting pCount=0 from a peer. Next, the BGPsec speaker generates one or two Signature_Blocks. Typically, a BGPsec speaker will use only a single algorithm suite and thus create only a single Signature_Block in the BGPsec_PATH attribute. However, to ensure backwards compatibility during a period of transition from a 'current' algorithm suite to a 'new' algorithm suite, it will be necessary to originate UPDATE messages that contain a Signature_Block for both the 'current' and the 'new' algorithm suites (see Section 6.1). If the received BGPsec UPDATE message contains two Signature_Blocks and the BGPsec speaker supports both of the corresponding algorithm suites, then the new UPDATE message generated by the BGPsec speaker MUST include both of the Signature_Blocks. If the received BGPsec UPDATE message contains two Signature_Blocks and the BGPsec speaker only supports one of the two corresponding algorithm suites, then the BGPsec speaker MUST remove the Signature_Block corresponding to the algorithm suite that it does not understand. If the BGPsec speaker does not support the algorithm suites in any of the Signature_Blocks contained in the received UPDATE message, then the BGPsec speaker MUST NOT propagate the route advertisement with the BGPsec_PATH attribute. (That is, if it chooses to propagate this route advertisement at all, it MUST do so as an unsigned BGP UPDATE message. See Section 4.4 for more information on converting to an unsigned BGP UPDATE message.) Note that in the case where the BGPsec_PATH has two Signature_Blocks (corresponding to different algorithm suites), the validation algorithm (see Section 5.2) deems a BGPsec UPDATE message to be 'Valid' if there is at least one supported algorithm suite (and corresponding Signature_Block) that is deemed 'Valid'. This means that a 'Valid' BGPsec UPDATE message may contain a Signature_Block that is not deemed 'Valid' (e.g., contains signatures that BGPsec does not successfully verify). Nonetheless, such Signature_Blocks MUST NOT be removed. (See Section 8 for a discussion of the security ramifications of this design choice.) Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 15 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 For each Signature_Block corresponding to an algorithm suite that the BGPsec speaker does support, the BGPsec speaker MUST add a new Signature Segment to the Signature_Block. This Signature Segment is prepended to the list of Signature Segments (placed in the first position) so that the list of Signature Segments appears in the same order as the corresponding Secure_Path Segments. The BGPsec speaker populates the fields of this new Signature Segment as follows. The Subject Key Identifier field in the new segment is populated with the identifier contained in the Subject Key Identifier extension of the RPKI router certificate corresponding to the BGPsec speaker [RFC 8209]. This Subject Key Identifier will be used by recipients of the route advertisement to identify the proper certificate to use in verifying the signature. The Signature field in the new segment contains a digital signature that binds the prefix and BGPsec_PATH attribute to the RPKI router certificate corresponding to the BGPsec speaker. The digital signature is computed as follows: o For clarity, let us number the Secure_Path and corresponding Signature Segments from 1 to N, as follows. Let Secure_Path Segment 1 and Signature Segment 1 be the segments produced by the origin AS. Let Secure_Path Segment 2 and Signature Segment 2 be the segments added by the next AS after the origin. Continue this method of numbering, and ultimately let Secure_Path Segment N and Signature Segment N be those that are being added by the current AS. The current AS (Nth AS) is signing and forwarding the UPDATE message to the next AS (i.e., the (N+1)th AS) in the chain of ASes that form the AS path. o In order to construct the digital signature for Signature Segment N (the Signature Segment being produced by the current AS), first construct the sequence of octets to be hashed as shown in Figure 8. This sequence of octets includes all the data that the Nth AS attests to by adding its digital signature in the UPDATE message that is being forwarded to a BGPsec speaker in the (N+1)th AS. (For the design rationale for choosing the specific structure in Figure 8, please see [Borchert].) Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 16 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 +------------------------------------+ | Target AS Number | +------------------------------------+----\ | Signature Segment : N-1 | \ +------------------------------------+ | | Secure_Path Segment : N | | +------------------------------------+ \ ... > Data from +------------------------------------+ / N Segments | Signature Segment : 1 | | +------------------------------------+ | | Secure_Path Segment : 2 | | +------------------------------------+ / | Secure_Path Segment : 1 | / +------------------------------------+---/ | Algorithm Suite Identifier | +------------------------------------+ | AFI | +------------------------------------+ | SAFI | +------------------------------------+ | NLRI | +------------------------------------+ Figure 8: Sequence of Octets to Be Hashed The elements in this sequence (Figure 8) MUST be ordered exactly as shown. The 'Target AS Number' is the AS to whom the BGPsec speaker intends to send the UPDATE message. (Note that the 'Target AS Number' is the AS number announced by the peer in the OPEN message of the BGP session within which the UPDATE message is sent.) The Secure_Path and Signature Segments (1 through N-1) are obtained from the BGPsec_PATH attribute. Finally, the Address Family Identifier (AFI), Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI), and NLRI fields are obtained from the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute [RFC 4760]. Additionally, in the Prefix field within the NLRI field (see Section 5 in RFC 4760 [RFC 4760]), all of the trailing bits MUST be set to 0 when constructing this sequence. o Apply to this octet sequence (in Figure 8) the digest algorithm (for the algorithm suite of this Signature_Block) to obtain a digest value. o Apply to this digest value the signature algorithm (for the algorithm suite of this Signature_Block) to obtain the digital signature. Then populate the Signature field (in Figure 7) with this digital signature. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 17 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 The Signature Length field (in Figure 7) is populated with the length (in octets) of the value in the Signature field. 4.3. Processing Instructions for Confederation Members Members of AS confederations [RFC 5065] MUST additionally follow the instructions in this section for processing BGPsec UPDATE messages. When a BGPsec speaker in an AS confederation receives a BGPsec UPDATE message from a peer that is external to the confederation and chooses to propagate the UPDATE message within the confederation, it first adds a signature signed to its own Member-AS (i.e., the 'Target AS Number' is the BGPsec speaker's Member-AS Number). In this internally modified UPDATE message, the newly added Secure_Path Segment contains the public AS number (i.e., Confederation Identifier), the segment's pCount value is set to 0, and Confed_Segment flag is set to 1. Setting pCount=0 in this case helps ensure that the AS path length is not unnecessarily incremented. The newly added signature is generated using a private key corresponding to the public AS number of the confederation. The BGPsec speaker propagates the modified UPDATE message to its peers within the confederation. Any BGPsec_PATH modifications mentioned below in the context of propagation of the UPDATE message within the confederation are in addition to the modification described above (i.e., with pCount=0). When a BGPsec speaker sends a BGPsec UPDATE message to a peer that belongs within its own Member-AS, the confederation member SHALL NOT modify the BGPsec_PATH attribute. When a BGPsec speaker sends a BGPsec UPDATE message to a peer that is within the same confederation but in a different Member-AS, the BGPsec speaker puts its Member-AS Number in the AS Number field of the Secure_Path Segment that it adds to the BGPsec UPDATE message. Additionally, in this case, the Member-AS that generates the Secure_Path Segment sets the Confed_Segment flag to 1. Further, the signature is generated with a private key corresponding to the BGPsec speaker's Member-AS Number. (Note: In this document, intra-Member-AS peering is regarded as iBGP, and inter-Member-AS peering is regarded as eBGP. The latter is also known as confederation-eBGP.) Within a confederation, the verification of BGPsec signatures added by other members of the confederation is optional. Note that if a confederation chooses not to verify digital signatures within the confederation, then BGPsec is not able to provide any assurances about the integrity of the Member-AS Numbers placed in Secure_Path Segments where the Confed_Segment flag is set to 1. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 18 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 When a confederation member receives a BGPsec UPDATE message from a peer within the confederation and propagates it to a peer outside the confederation, it needs to remove all of the Secure_Path Segments added by confederation members as well as the corresponding Signature Segments. To do this, the confederation member propagating the route outside the confederation does the following: o First, starting with the most recently added Secure_Path Segment, remove all of the consecutive Secure_Path Segments that have the Confed_Segment flag set to 1. Stop this process once a Secure_Path Segment that has its Confed_Segment flag set to 0 is reached. Keep a count of the number of segments removed in this fashion. o Second, starting with the most recently added Signature Segment, remove a number of Signature Segments equal to the number of Secure_Path Segments removed in the previous step. (That is, remove the K most recently added Signature Segments, where K is the number of Secure_Path Segments removed in the previous step.) o Finally, add a Secure_Path Segment containing, in the AS field, the AS Confederation Identifier (the public AS number of the confederation) as well as a corresponding Signature Segment. Note that all fields other than the AS field are populated as per Section 4.2. Finally, as discussed above, an AS confederation MAY optionally decide that its members will not verify digital signatures added by members. In such a confederation, when a BGPsec speaker runs the algorithm in Section 5.2, the BGPsec speaker, during the process of signature verifications, first checks whether the Confed_Segment flag in a Secure_Path Segment is set to 1. If the flag is set to 1, the BGPsec speaker skips the verification for the corresponding signature and immediately moves on to the next Secure_Path Segment. Note that as specified in Section 5.2, it is an error when a BGPsec speaker receives, from a peer who is not in the same AS confederation, a BGPsec UPDATE message containing a Confed_Segment flag set to 1. 4.4. Reconstructing the AS_PATH Attribute BGPsec UPDATE messages do not contain the AS_PATH attribute. However, the AS_PATH attribute can be reconstructed from the BGPsec_PATH attribute. This is necessary in the case where a route advertisement is received via a BGPsec UPDATE message and then propagated to a peer via a non-BGPsec UPDATE message (e.g., because the latter peer does not support BGPsec). Note that there may be additional cases where an implementation finds it useful to perform this reconstruction. Before attempting to reconstruct an AS_PATH for Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 19 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 the purpose of forwarding an unsigned (non-BGPsec) UPDATE message to a peer, a BGPsec speaker MUST perform the basic integrity checks listed in Section 5.2 to ensure that the received BGPsec UPDATE message is properly formed. The AS_PATH attribute can be constructed from the BGPsec_PATH attribute as follows. Starting with a blank AS_PATH attribute, process the Secure_Path Segments in order from least recently added (corresponding to the origin) to most recently added. For each Secure_Path Segment, perform the following steps: 1. If the Secure_Path Segment has pCount=0, then do nothing (i.e., move on to process the next Secure_Path Segment). 2. If the Secure_Path Segment has pCount greater than 0 and the Confed_Segment flag is set to 1, then look at the most recently added segment in the AS_PATH. * In the case where the AS_PATH is blank or in the case where the most recently added segment is of type AS_SEQUENCE, add (prepend to the AS_PATH) a new AS_PATH segment of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE. This segment of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE shall contain a number of elements equal to the pCount field in the current Secure_Path Segment. Each of these elements shall be the AS number contained in the current Secure_Path Segment. (That is, if the pCount field is X, then the segment of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE contains X copies of the Secure_Path Segment's AS Number field.) * In the case where the most recently added segment in the AS_PATH is of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE, then add (prepend to the segment) a number of elements equal to the pCount field in the current Secure_Path Segment. The value of each of these elements shall be the AS number contained in the current Secure_Path Segment. (That is, if the pCount field is X, then add X copies of the Secure_Path Segment's AS Number field to the existing AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE.) 3. If the Secure_Path Segment has pCount greater than 0 and the Confed_Segment flag is set to 0, then look at the most recently added segment in the AS_PATH. * In the case where the AS_PATH is blank or in the case where the most recently added segment is of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE, add (prepend to the AS_PATH) a new AS_PATH segment of type AS_SEQUENCE. This segment of type AS_SEQUENCE shall contain a number of elements equal to the pCount field in the current Secure_Path Segment. Each of these elements shall be the AS Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 20 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 number contained in the current Secure_Path Segment. (That is, if the pCount field is X, then the segment of type AS_SEQUENCE contains X copies of the Secure_Path Segment's AS Number field.) * In the case where the most recently added segment in the AS_PATH is of type AS_SEQUENCE, then add (prepend to the segment) a number of elements equal to the pCount field in the current Secure_Path Segment. The value of each of these elements shall be the AS number contained in the current Secure_Path Segment. (That is, if the pCount field is X, then add X copies of the Secure_Path Segment's AS Number field to the existing AS_SEQUENCE.) As part of the procedure described above, the following additional actions are performed in order not to exceed the size limitations of AS_SEQUENCE and AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE. While adding the next Secure_Path Segment (with its prepends, if any) to the AS_PATH being assembled, if it would cause the AS_SEQUENCE (or AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE) at hand to exceed the limit of 255 AS numbers per segment [RFC 4271] [RFC 5065], then the BGPsec speaker would follow the recommendations in RFC 4271 [RFC 4271] and RFC 5065 [RFC 5065] of creating another segment of the same type (AS_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE) and continue filling that. Finally, one special case of reconstruction of AS_PATH is when the BGPsec_PATH attribute is absent. As explained in Section 4.1, when a BGPsec speaker originates a prefix and sends it to a BGPsec-capable iBGP peer, the BGPsec_PATH is not attached. So, when received from a BGPsec-capable iBGP peer, no BGPsec_PATH attribute in a BGPsec UPDATE message is equivalent to an empty AS_PATH [RFC 4271]. 5. Processing a Received BGPsec UPDATE Message Upon receiving a BGPsec UPDATE message from an external (eBGP) peer, a BGPsec speaker SHOULD validate the message to determine the authenticity of the path information contained in the BGPsec_PATH attribute. Typically, a BGPsec speaker will also wish to perform origin validation (see RFC 6483 [RFC 6483] and RFC 6811 [RFC 6811]) on an incoming BGPsec UPDATE message, but such validation is independent of the validation described in this section. Section 5.1 provides an overview of BGPsec validation, and Section 5.2 provides a specific algorithm for performing such validation. (Note that an implementation need not follow the specific algorithm in Section 5.2 as long as the input/output behavior of the validation is identical to that of the algorithm in Section 5.2.) During exceptional conditions (e.g., the BGPsec Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 21 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 speaker receives an incredibly large number of UPDATE messages at once), a BGPsec speaker MAY temporarily defer validation of incoming BGPsec UPDATE messages. The treatment of such BGPsec UPDATE messages, whose validation has been deferred, is a matter of local policy. However, an implementation SHOULD ensure that deferment of validation and status of deferred messages is visible to the operator. The validity of BGPsec UPDATE messages is a function of the current RPKI state. When a BGPsec speaker learns that the RPKI state has changed (e.g., from an RPKI validating cache via the RPKI-Router protocol [RFC 8210]), the BGPsec speaker MUST rerun validation on all affected UPDATE messages stored in its Adj-RIB-In [RFC 4271]. For example, when a given RPKI router certificate ceases to be valid (e.g., it expires or is revoked), all UPDATE messages containing a signature whose SKI matches the SKI in the given certificate MUST be reassessed to determine if they are still valid. If this reassessment determines that the validity state of an UPDATE message has changed, then, depending on local policy, it may be necessary to rerun best path selection. BGPsec UPDATE messages do not contain an AS_PATH attribute. The Secure_Path contains AS path information for the BGPsec UPDATE message. Therefore, a BGPsec speaker MUST utilize the AS path information in the Secure_Path in all cases where it would otherwise use the AS path information in the AS_PATH attribute. The only exception to this rule is when AS path information must be updated in order to propagate a route to a peer (in which case the BGPsec speaker follows the instructions in Section 4). Section 4.4 provides an algorithm for constructing an AS_PATH attribute from a BGPsec_PATH attribute. Whenever the use of AS path information is called for (e.g., loop detection or the use of the AS path length in best path selection), the externally visible behavior of the implementation shall be the same as if the implementation had run the algorithm in Section 4.4 and used the resulting AS_PATH attribute as it would for a non-BGPsec UPDATE message. 5.1. Overview of BGPsec Validation Validation of a BGPsec UPDATE message makes use of data from RPKI router certificates. In particular, it is necessary that the recipient have access to the following data obtained from valid RPKI router certificates: the AS Number, Public Key, and Subject Key Identifier from each valid RPKI router certificate. Note that the BGPsec speaker could perform the validation of RPKI router certificates on its own and extract the required data, or it could receive the same data from a trusted cache that performs RPKI Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 22 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 validation on behalf of (some set of) BGPsec speakers. (For example, the trusted cache could deliver the necessary validity information to the BGPsec speaker by using the Router Key PDU (Protocol Data Unit) for the RPKI-Router protocol [RFC 8210].) To validate a BGPsec UPDATE message containing the BGPsec_PATH attribute, the recipient performs the validation steps specified in Section 5.2. The validation procedure results in one of two states: 'Valid' and 'Not Valid'. It is expected that the output of the validation procedure will be used as an input to BGP route selection. That said, BGP route selection, and thus the handling of the validation states, is a matter of local policy and is handled using local policy mechanisms. Implementations SHOULD enable operators to set such local policy on a per-session basis. (That is, it is expected that some operators will choose to treat BGPsec validation status differently for UPDATE messages received over different BGP sessions.) BGPsec validation need only be performed at the eBGP edge. The validation status of a BGP signed/unsigned UPDATE message MAY be conveyed via iBGP from an ingress edge router to an egress edge router via some mechanism, according to local policy within an AS. As discussed in Section 4, when a BGPsec speaker chooses to forward a (syntactically correct) BGPsec UPDATE message, it SHOULD be forwarded with its BGPsec_PATH attribute intact (regardless of the validation state of the UPDATE message). Based entirely on local policy, an egress router receiving a BGPsec UPDATE message from within its own AS MAY choose to perform its own validation. 5.2. Validation Algorithm This section specifies an algorithm for validation of BGPsec UPDATE messages. A conformant implementation MUST include a BGPsec update validation algorithm that is functionally equivalent to the externally visible behavior of this algorithm. First, the recipient of a BGPsec UPDATE message performs a check to ensure that the message is properly formed. Both syntactical and protocol violation errors are checked. The BGPsec_PATH attribute MUST be present when a BGPsec UPDATE message is received from an external (eBGP) BGPsec peer and also when such an UPDATE message is propagated to an internal (iBGP) BGPsec peer (see Section 4.2). The error checks specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC 4271] are performed, except that for BGPsec UPDATE messages the checks on the AS_PATH attribute do not apply and instead the following checks on the BGPsec_PATH attribute are performed: Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 23 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 1. Check to ensure that the entire BGPsec_PATH attribute is syntactically correct (conforms to the specification in this document). 2. Check that the AS number in the most recently added Secure_Path Segment (i.e., the one corresponding to the eBGP peer from which the UPDATE message was received) matches the AS number of that peer as specified in the BGP OPEN message. (Note: This check is performed only at an ingress BGPsec router where the UPDATE message is first received from a peer AS.) 3. Check that each Signature_Block contains one Signature Segment for each Secure_Path Segment in the Secure_Path portion of the BGPsec_PATH attribute. (Note that the entirety of each Signature_Block MUST be checked to ensure that it is well formed, even though the validation process may terminate before all signatures are cryptographically verified.) 4. Check that the UPDATE message does not contain an AS_PATH attribute. 5. If the UPDATE message was received from a BGPsec peer that is not a member of the BGPsec speaker's AS confederation, check to ensure that none of the Secure_Path Segments contain a Flags field with the Confed_Segment flag set to 1. 6. If the UPDATE message was received from a BGPsec peer that is a member of the BGPsec speaker's AS confederation, check to ensure that the Secure_Path Segment corresponding to that peer contains a Flags field with the Confed_Segment flag set to 1. 7. If the UPDATE message was received from a peer that is not expected to set pCount=0 (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3), then check to ensure that the pCount field in the most recently added Secure_Path Segment is not equal to 0. (Note: See Section 7.2 for router configuration guidance related to this item.) 8. Using the equivalent of AS_PATH corresponding to the Secure_Path in the UPDATE message (see Section 4.4), check that the local AS number is not present in the AS path (i.e., rule out an AS loop). If any of these checks fail, it is an error in the BGPsec_PATH attribute. BGPsec speakers MUST handle any syntactical or protocol errors in the BGPsec_PATH attribute by using the "treat-as-withdraw" approach as defined in RFC 7606 [RFC 7606]. (Note: Since the AS number of a transparent route server does appear in the Secure_Path with pCount=0, the route server MAY check to see if its local AS is Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 24 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 listed in the Secure_Path, and this check MAY be included in the loop-detection check listed above.) Next, the BGPsec speaker examines the Signature_Blocks in the BGPsec_PATH attribute. A Signature_Block corresponding to an algorithm suite that the BGPsec speaker does not support is not considered in the validation process. If there is no Signature_Block corresponding to an algorithm suite that the BGPsec speaker supports, then in order to consider the UPDATE message in the route selection process, the BGPsec speaker MUST strip the Signature_Block(s), reconstruct the AS_PATH from the Secure_Path (see Section 4.4), and treat the UPDATE message as if it were received as an unsigned BGP UPDATE message. For each remaining Signature_Block (corresponding to an algorithm suite supported by the BGPsec speaker), the BGPsec speaker iterates through the Signature Segments in the Signature_Block, starting with the most recently added segment (and concluding with the least recently added segment). Note that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Signature Segments and Secure_Path Segments within the BGPsec_PATH attribute. The following steps make use of this correspondence: o Step 1: Let there be K AS hops in a received BGPsec_PATH attribute that is to be validated. Let AS(1), AS(2), ..., AS(K+1) denote the sequence of AS numbers from the origin AS to the validating AS. Let Secure_Path Segment N and Signature Segment N in the BGPsec_PATH attribute refer to those corresponding to AS(N) (where N = 1, 2, ..., K). The BGPsec speaker that is processing and validating the BGPsec_PATH attribute resides in AS(K+1). Let Signature Segment N be the Signature Segment that is currently being verified. o Step 2: Locate the public key needed to verify the signature (in the current Signature Segment). To do this, consult the valid RPKI router certificate data and look up all valid (AS Number, Public Key, Subject Key Identifier) triples in which the AS matches the AS number in the corresponding Secure_Path Segment. Of these triples that match the AS number, check whether there is an SKI that matches the value in the Subject Key Identifier field of the Signature Segment. If this check finds no such matching SKI value, then mark the entire Signature_Block as 'Not Valid' and proceed to the next Signature_Block. o Step 3: Compute the digest function (for the given algorithm suite) on the appropriate data. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 25 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 In order to verify the digital signature in Signature Segment N, construct the sequence of octets to be hashed as shown in Figure 9 (using the notations defined in Step 1). (Note that this sequence is the same sequence that was used by AS(N) that created the Signature Segment N (see Section 4.2 and Figure 8).) +------------------------------------+ | Target AS Number | +------------------------------------+----\ | Signature Segment : N-1 | \ +------------------------------------+ | | Secure_Path Segment : N | | +------------------------------------+ \ ... > Data from +------------------------------------+ / N Segments | Signature Segment : 1 | | +------------------------------------+ | | Secure_Path Segment : 2 | | +------------------------------------+ / | Secure_Path Segment : 1 | / +------------------------------------+---/ | Algorithm Suite Identifier | +------------------------------------+ | AFI | +------------------------------------+ | SAFI | +------------------------------------+ | NLRI | +------------------------------------+ Figure 9: Sequence of Octets to Be Hashed for Signature Verification of Signature Segment N; N = 1,2, ..., K, Where K Is the Number of AS Hops in the BGPsec_PATH Attribute The elements in this sequence (Figure 9) MUST be ordered exactly as shown. For the first segment to be processed (the most recently added segment (i.e., N = K) given that there are K hops in the Secure_Path), the 'Target AS Number' is AS(K+1), the AS number of the BGPsec speaker validating the UPDATE message. Note that if a BGPsec speaker uses multiple AS Numbers (e.g., the BGPsec speaker is a member of a confederation), the AS number used here MUST be the AS number announced in the OPEN message for the BGP session over which the BGPsec UPDATE message was received. For each other Signature Segment (N smaller than K), the 'Target AS Number' is AS(N+1), the AS number in the Secure_Path Segment that corresponds to the Signature Segment added immediately after the one being processed (that is, in the Secure_Path Segment that Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 26 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 corresponds to the Signature Segment that the validator just finished processing). The Secure_Path and Signature Segment are obtained from the BGPsec_PATH attribute. The AFI, SAFI, and NLRI fields are obtained from the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute [RFC 4760]. Additionally, in the Prefix field within the NLRI field (see Section 5 in RFC 4760 [RFC 4760]), all of the trailing bits MUST be set to 0 when constructing this sequence. o Step 4: Use the signature validation algorithm (for the given algorithm suite) to verify the signature in the current segment. That is, invoke the signature validation algorithm on the following three inputs: the value of the Signature field in the current segment, the digest value computed in Step 3 above, and the public key obtained from the valid RPKI data in Step 2 above. If the signature validation algorithm determines that the signature is invalid, then mark the entire Signature_Block as 'Not Valid' and proceed to the next Signature_Block. If the signature validation algorithm determines that the signature is valid, then continue processing Signature Segments (within the current Signature_Block). If all Signature Segments within a Signature_Block pass validation (i.e., all segments are processed and the Signature_Block has not yet been marked 'Not Valid'), then the Signature_Block is marked as 'Valid'. If at least one Signature_Block is marked as 'Valid', then the validation algorithm terminates and the BGPsec UPDATE message is deemed 'Valid'. (That is, if a BGPsec UPDATE message contains two Signature_Blocks, then the UPDATE message is deemed 'Valid' if the first Signature_Block is marked 'Valid' OR the second Signature_Block is marked 'Valid'.) 6. Algorithms and Extensibility 6.1. Algorithm Suite Considerations Note that there is currently no support for bilateral negotiation (using BGP capabilities) between BGPsec peers to use a particular (digest and signature) algorithm suite. This is because the algorithm suite used by the sender of a BGPsec UPDATE message MUST be understood not only by the peer to whom it is directly sending the message but also by all BGPsec speakers to whom the route advertisement is eventually propagated. Therefore, selection of an algorithm suite cannot be a local matter negotiated by BGP peers but instead must be coordinated throughout the Internet. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 27 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 To this end, [RFC 8208] specifies a mandatory-to-use 'current' algorithm suite for use by all BGPsec speakers. It is anticipated that, in the future, [RFC 8208] or its successor will be updated to specify a transition from the 'current' algorithm suite to a 'new' algorithm suite. During the period of transition, all BGPsec UPDATE messages SHOULD simultaneously use both the 'current' algorithm suite and the 'new' algorithm suite. (Note that Sections 3 and 4 specify how the BGPsec_PATH attribute can contain signatures, in parallel, for two algorithm suites.) Once the transition is complete, the use of the old 'current' algorithm will be deprecated, the use of the 'new' algorithm will be mandatory, and a subsequent 'even newer' algorithm suite may be specified as "recommended to implement". Once the transition has successfully been completed in this manner, BGPsec speakers SHOULD include only a single Signature_Block (corresponding to the 'new' algorithm). 6.2. Considerations for the SKI Size Depending on the method of generating key identifiers [RFC 7093], the size of the SKI in an RPKI router certificate may vary. The SKI field in the BGPsec_PATH attribute has a fixed size of 20 octets (see Figure 7). If the SKI is longer than 20 octets, then use the leftmost 20 octets of the SKI (excluding the tag and length) [RFC 7093]. If the SKI value is shorter than 20 octets, then pad the SKI (excluding the tag and length) to the right (least significant octets) with octets having "0" values. 6.3. Extensibility Considerations This section discusses potential changes to BGPsec that would require substantial changes to the processing of the BGPsec_PATH and thus necessitate a new version of BGPsec. Examples of such changes include: o A new type of signature algorithm that produces signatures of variable length o A new type of signature algorithm for which the number of signatures in the Signature_Block is not equal to the number of ASes in the Secure_Path (e.g., aggregate signatures) o Changes to the data that is protected by the BGPsec signatures (e.g., attributes other than the AS path) In the case that such a change to BGPsec were deemed desirable, it is expected that a subsequent version of BGPsec would be created and that this version of BGPsec would specify a new BGP path attribute -- Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 28 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 let's call it "BGPsec_PATH_Two" -- that is designed to accommodate the desired changes to BGPsec. In such a case, [RFC 8208] or its successor would be updated to specify algorithm suites appropriate for the new version of BGPsec. At this point, a transition would begin that is analogous to the algorithm transition discussed in Section 6.1. During the transition period, all BGPsec speakers SHOULD simultaneously include both the BGPsec_PATH attribute and the new BGPsec_PATH_Two attribute. Once the transition is complete, the use of BGPsec_PATH could then be deprecated, at which point BGPsec speakers should include only the new BGPsec_PATH_Two attribute. Such a process could facilitate a transition to a new BGPsec semantics in a backwards-compatible fashion. 7. Operations and Management Considerations Some operations and management issues that are closely relevant to BGPsec protocol specification and deployment are highlighted here. The best practices concerning operations and deployment of BGPsec are provided in [RFC 8207]. 7.1. Capability Negotiation Failure Section 2.2 describes the negotiation required to establish a BGPsec-capable peering session. Not only must the BGPsec capability be exchanged (and agreed on), but the BGP multiprotocol extension [RFC 4760] for the same AFI and the 4-byte AS capability [RFC 6793] MUST also be exchanged. Failure to properly negotiate a BGPsec session -- due to a missing capability, for example -- may still result in the exchange of BGP (unsigned) UPDATE messages. It is RECOMMENDED that an implementation log the failure to properly negotiate a BGPsec session. Also, an implementation MUST have the ability to prevent a BGP session from being established if configured to only use BGPsec. 7.2. Preventing Misuse of pCount=0 A peer that is an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) (i.e., route server) with a transparent AS is expected to set pCount=0 in its Secure_Path Segment while forwarding an UPDATE message to a peer (see Section 4.2). Clearly, such an IXP MUST configure its BGPsec router to set pCount=0 in its Secure_Path Segment. This also means that a BGPsec speaker MUST be configured so that it permits pCount=0 from an IXP peer. Two other cases where pCount is set to 0 are in the contexts of an AS confederation (see Section 4.3) and of AS migration [RFC 8206]. In these two cases, pCount=0 is set and accepted within the same AS (albeit the AS has two different identities). Note that Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 29 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 if a BGPsec speaker does not expect a peer AS to set its pCount=0 and if an UPDATE message received from that peer violates this, then the UPDATE message MUST be considered to be in error (see the list of checks in Section 5.2). See Section 8.4 for a discussion of security considerations concerning pCount=0. 7.3. Early Termination of Signature Verification During the validation of a BGPsec UPDATE message, route processor performance speedup can be achieved by incorporating the following observations. An UPDATE message is deemed 'Valid' if at least one of the Signature_Blocks is marked as 'Valid' (see Section 5.2). Therefore, if an UPDATE message contains two Signature_Blocks and the first one verified is found 'Valid', then the second Signature_Block does not have to be verified. And if the UPDATE message is chosen for best path, then the BGPsec speaker adds its signature (generated with the respective algorithm) to each of the two Signature_Blocks and forwards the UPDATE message. Also, a BGPsec UPDATE message is deemed 'Not Valid' if at least one signature in each of the Signature_Blocks is invalid. This principle can also be used for route processor workload savings, i.e., the verification for a Signature_Block terminates early when the first invalid signature is encountered. 7.4. Non-deterministic Signature Algorithms Many signature algorithms are non-deterministic. That is, many signature algorithms will produce different signatures each time they are run (even when they are signing the same data with the same key). Therefore, if a BGPsec router receives a BGPsec UPDATE message from a peer and later receives a second BGPsec UPDATE message from the same peer for the same prefix with the same Secure_Path and SKIs, the second UPDATE message MAY differ from the first UPDATE message in the signature fields (for a non-deterministic signature algorithm). However, the two sets of signature fields will not differ if the sender caches and reuses the previous signature. For a deterministic signature algorithm, the signature fields MUST be identical between the two UPDATE messages. On the basis of these observations, an implementation MAY incorporate optimizations in update validation processing. 7.5. Private AS Numbers It is possible that a stub customer of an ISP employs a private AS number. Such a stub customer cannot publish a ROA in the Global RPKI for the private AS number and the prefixes that they use. Also, the Global RPKI cannot support private AS numbers (i.e., BGPsec speakers in private ASes cannot be issued router certificates in the Global Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 30 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 RPKI). For interactions between the stub customer (with the private AS number) and the ISP, the following two scenarios are possible: 1. The stub customer sends an unsigned BGP UPDATE message for a prefix to the ISP's AS. An edge BGPsec speaker in the ISP's AS may choose to propagate the prefix to its non-BGPsec and BGPsec peers. If so, the ISP's edge BGPsec speaker MUST strip the AS_PATH with the private AS number and then (a) re-originate the prefix without any signatures towards its non-BGPsec peer and (b) re-originate the prefix including its own signature towards its BGPsec peer. In both cases (i.e., (a) and (b)), the prefix MUST have a ROA in the Global RPKI authorizing the ISP's AS to originate it. 2. The ISP and the stub customer may use a local RPKI repository (using a mechanism such as one of the mechanisms described in [SLURM]). Then, there can be a ROA for the prefix originated by the stub AS, and the eBGP speaker in the stub AS can be a BGPsec speaker having a router certificate, albeit the ROA and router certificate are valid only locally. With this arrangement, the stub AS sends a signed UPDATE message for the prefix to the ISP's AS. An edge BGPsec speaker in the ISP's AS validates the UPDATE message, using RPKI data based on the local RPKI view. Further, it may choose to propagate the prefix to its non-BGPsec and BGPsec peers. If so, the ISP's edge BGPsec speaker MUST strip the Secure_Path and the Signature Segment received from the stub AS with the private AS number and then (a) re-originate the prefix without any signatures towards its non-BGPsec peer and (b) re-originate the prefix including its own signature towards its BGPsec peer. In both cases (i.e., (a) and (b)), the prefix MUST have a ROA in the Global RPKI authorizing the ISP's AS to originate it. It is possible that private AS numbers are used in an AS confederation [RFC 5065]. The BGPsec protocol requires that when a BGPsec UPDATE message propagates through a confederation, each Member-AS that forwards it to a peer Member-AS MUST sign the UPDATE message (see Section 4.3). However, the Global RPKI cannot support private AS numbers. In order for the BGPsec speakers in Member-ASes with private AS numbers to have digital certificates, there MUST be a mechanism in place in the confederation that allows the establishment of a local, customized view of the RPKI, augmenting the Global RPKI repository data as needed. Since this mechanism (for augmenting and maintaining a local image of RPKI data) operates locally within an AS or AS confederation, it need not be standard based. However, a standard-based mechanism can be used (see [SLURM]). Recall that in order to prevent exposure of the internals of AS confederations, a Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 31 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 BGPsec speaker exporting to a non-member removes all intra-confederation Secure_Path Segments and Signatures (see Section 4.3). 7.6. Robustness Considerations for Accessing RPKI Data The deployment structure, technologies, and best practices concerning Global RPKI data to reach routers (via local RPKI caches) are described in [RFC 6810], [RFC 8210], [RFC 8181], [RFC 7115], [RFC 8207], and [RFC 8182]. For example, Serial-Number-based incremental update mechanisms are used for efficient transfer of just the data records that have changed since the last update [RFC 6810] [RFC 8210]. The update notification file is used by Relying Parties (RPs) to discover whether any changes exist between the state of the Global RPKI repository and the RP's cache [RFC 8182]. The notification describes the location of (1) the files containing the snapshot and (2) incremental deltas, which can be used by the RP to synchronize with the repository. Making use of these technologies and best practices results in enabling robustness, efficiency, and better security for the BGPsec routers and RPKI caches in terms of the flow of RPKI data from repositories to RPKI caches to routers. With these mechanisms, it is believed that an attacker wouldn't be able to meaningfully correlate RPKI data flows with BGPsec RP (or router) actions, thus avoiding attacks that may attempt to determine the set of ASes interacting with an RP via the interactions between the RP and RPKI servers. 7.7. Graceful Restart During Graceful Restart (GR), restarting and receiving BGPsec speakers MUST follow the procedures specified in [RFC 4724] for restarting and receiving BGP speakers, respectively. In particular, the behavior of retaining the forwarding state for the routes in the Loc-RIB [RFC 4271] and marking them as stale, as well as not differentiating between stale routing information and other information during forwarding, will be the same as the behavior specified in [RFC 4724]. 7.8. Robustness of Secret Random Number in ECDSA The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) with curve P-256 is used for signing UPDATE messages in BGPsec [RFC 8208]. For ECDSA, it is stated in Section 6.3 of [FIPS186-4] that a new secret random number "k" shall be generated prior to the generation of each digital signature. A high-entropy random bit generator (RBG) must be used for generating "k", and any potential bias in the "k" generation algorithm must be mitigated (see the methods described in [FIPS186-4] and [SP800-90A]). Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 32 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 7.9. Incremental/Partial Deployment Considerations What will migration from BGP to BGPsec look like? What are the benefits for the first adopters? Initially, small groups of contiguous ASes would be doing BGPsec. There would possibly be one or more such groups in different geographic regions of the global Internet. Only the routes originated within each group and propagated within its borders would get the benefits of cryptographic AS path protection. As BGPsec adoption grows, each group grows in size, and eventually they join together to form even larger BGPsec-capable groups of contiguous ASes. The benefit for early adopters starts with AS path security within the regions of contiguous ASes spanned by their respective groups. Over time, they would see those regions of contiguous ASes grow much larger. During partial deployment, if an AS in the path doesn't support BGPsec, then BGP goes back to traditional mode, i.e., BGPsec UPDATE messages are converted to unsigned UPDATE messages before forwarding to that AS (see Section 4.4). At this point, the assurance that the UPDATE message propagated via the sequence of ASes listed is lost. In other words, for the BGPsec routers residing in the ASes starting from the origin AS to the AS before the one not supporting BGPsec, the assurance can still be provided, but not beyond that (for the UPDATE messages in consideration). 8. Security Considerations For a discussion of the BGPsec threat model and related security considerations, please see RFC 7132 [RFC 7132]. 8.1. Security Guarantees When used in conjunction with origin validation (see RFC 6483 [RFC 6483] and RFC 6811 [RFC 6811]), a BGPsec speaker who receives a valid BGPsec UPDATE message containing a route advertisement for a given prefix is provided with the following security guarantees: o The origin AS number corresponds to an AS that has been authorized, in the RPKI, by the IP address space holder to originate route advertisements for the given prefix. o For each AS in the path, a BGPsec speaker authorized by the holder of the AS number intentionally chose (in accordance with local policy) to propagate the route advertisement to the subsequent AS in the path. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 33 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 That is, the recipient of a valid BGPsec UPDATE message is assured that the UPDATE message propagated via the sequence of ASes listed in the Secure_Path portion of the BGPsec_PATH attribute. (It should be noted that BGPsec does not offer any guarantee that the data packets would flow along the indicated path; it only guarantees that the BGP UPDATE message conveying the path indeed propagated along the indicated path.) Furthermore, the recipient is assured that this path terminates in an AS that has been authorized by the IP address space holder as a legitimate destination for traffic to the given prefix. Note that although BGPsec provides a mechanism for an AS to validate that a received UPDATE message has certain security properties, the use of such a mechanism to influence route selection is completely a matter of local policy. Therefore, a BGPsec speaker can make no assumptions about the validity of a route received from an external (eBGP) BGPsec peer. That is, a compliant BGPsec peer may (depending on the local policy of the peer) send UPDATE messages that fail the validity test in Section 5. Thus, a BGPsec speaker MUST completely validate all BGPsec UPDATE messages received from external peers. (Validation of UPDATE messages received from internal peers is also a matter of local policy; see Section 5.) 8.2. On the Removal of BGPsec Signatures There may be cases where a BGPsec speaker deems 'Valid' (as per the validation algorithm in Section 5.2) a BGPsec UPDATE message that contains both a 'Valid' and a 'Not Valid' Signature_Block. That is, the UPDATE message contains two sets of signatures corresponding to two algorithm suites, and one set of signatures verifies correctly and the other set of signatures fails to verify. In this case, the protocol specifies that a BGPsec speaker choosing to propagate the route advertisement in such an UPDATE message MUST add its signature to each of the Signature_Blocks (see Section 4.2). Thus, the BGPsec speaker creates a signature using both algorithm suites and creates a new UPDATE message that contains both the 'Valid' and the 'Not Valid' set of signatures (from its own vantage point). To understand the reason for such a design decision, consider the case where the BGPsec speaker receives an UPDATE message with both a set of algorithm A signatures that are 'Valid' and a set of algorithm B signatures that are 'Not Valid'. In such a case, it is possible (perhaps even likely, depending on the state of the algorithm transition) that some of the BGPsec speaker's peers (or other entities further downstream in the BGP topology) do not support algorithm A. Therefore, if the BGPsec speaker were to remove the 'Not Valid' set of signatures corresponding to algorithm B, such entities would treat the message as though it were unsigned. By Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 34 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 including the 'Not Valid' set of signatures when propagating a route advertisement, the BGPsec speaker ensures that downstream entities have as much information as possible to make an informed opinion about the validation status of a BGPsec UPDATE message. Note also that during a period of partial BGPsec deployment, a downstream entity might reasonably treat unsigned messages differently from BGPsec UPDATE messages that contain a single set of 'Not Valid' signatures. That is, by removing the set of 'Not Valid' signatures, the BGPsec speaker might actually cause a downstream entity to 'upgrade' the status of a route advertisement from 'Not Valid' to unsigned. Finally, note that in the above scenario, the BGPsec speaker might have deemed algorithm A signatures 'Valid' only because of some issue with the RPKI state local to its AS (for example, its AS might not yet have obtained a Certificate Revocation List (CRL) indicating that a key used to verify an algorithm A signature belongs to a newly revoked certificate). In such a case, it is highly desirable for a downstream entity to treat the UPDATE message as 'Not Valid' (due to the revocation) and not as 'unsigned' (which would happen if the 'Not Valid' Signature_Blocks were removed en route). A similar argument applies to the case where a BGPsec speaker (for some reason, such as a lack of viable alternatives) selects as its best path (to a given prefix) a route obtained via a 'Not Valid' BGPsec UPDATE message. In such a case, the BGPsec speaker should propagate a signed BGPsec UPDATE message, adding its signature to the 'Not Valid' signatures that already exist. Again, this is to ensure that downstream entities are able to make an informed decision and not erroneously treat the route as unsigned. It should also be noted that due to possible differences in RPKI data observed at different vantage points in the network, a BGPsec UPDATE message deemed 'Not Valid' at an upstream BGPsec speaker may be deemed 'Valid' by another BGP speaker downstream. Indeed, when a BGPsec speaker signs an outgoing UPDATE message, it is not attesting to a belief that all signatures prior to its own signature are valid. Instead, it is merely asserting that: o The BGPsec speaker received the given route advertisement with the indicated prefix, AFI, SAFI, and Secure_Path, and o The BGPsec speaker chose to propagate an advertisement for this route to the peer (implicitly) indicated by the 'Target AS Number'. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 35 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 8.3. Mitigation of Denial-of-Service Attacks The BGPsec update validation procedure is a potential target for denial-of-service attacks against a BGPsec speaker. The mitigation of denial-of-service attacks that are specific to the BGPsec protocol is considered here. To mitigate the effectiveness of such denial-of-service attacks, BGPsec speakers should implement an update validation algorithm that performs expensive checks (e.g., signature verification) after performing checks that are less expensive (e.g., syntax checks). The validation algorithm specified in Section 5.2 was chosen so as to perform checks that are likely to be expensive after checks that are likely to be inexpensive. However, the relative cost of performing required validation steps may vary between implementations, and thus the algorithm specified in Section 5.2 may not provide the best denial-of-service protection for all implementations. Additionally, sending UPDATE messages with very long AS paths (and hence a large number of signatures) is a potential mechanism to conduct denial-of-service attacks. For this reason, it is important that an implementation of the validation algorithm stops attempting to verify signatures as soon as an invalid signature is found. (This ensures that long sequences of invalid signatures cannot be used for denial-of-service attacks.) Furthermore, implementations can mitigate such attacks by only performing validation on UPDATE messages that, if valid, would be selected as the best path. That is, if an UPDATE message contains a route that would lose out in best path selection for other reasons (e.g., a very long AS path), then it is not necessary to determine the BGPsec-validity status of the route. 8.4. Additional Security Considerations The mechanism of setting the pCount field to 0 is included in this specification to enable route servers in the control path to participate in BGPsec without increasing the length of the AS path. Two other scenarios where pCount=0 is utilized are in the contexts of an AS confederation (see Section 4.3) and of AS migration [RFC 8206]. In these two scenarios, pCount=0 is set and also accepted within the same AS (albeit the AS has two different identities). However, entities other than route servers, confederation ASes, or migrating ASes could conceivably use this mechanism (set the pCount to 0) to attract traffic (by reducing the length of the AS path) illegitimately. This risk is largely mitigated if every BGPsec speaker follows the operational guidance in Section 7.2 for configuration for setting pCount=0 and/or accepting pCount=0 from a peer. However, note that a recipient of a BGPsec UPDATE message Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 36 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 within which an upstream entity two or more hops away has set pCount to 0 is unable to verify for themselves whether pCount was set to 0 legitimately. There is a possibility of passing a BGPsec UPDATE message via tunneling between colluding ASes. For example, let's say that AS-X does not peer with AS-Y but colludes with AS-Y, and it signs and sends a BGPsec UPDATE message to AS-Y by tunneling. AS-Y can then further sign and propagate the BGPsec UPDATE message to its peers. It is beyond the scope of the BGPsec protocol to detect this form of malicious behavior. BGPsec is designed to protect messages sent within BGP (i.e., within the control plane) -- not when the control plane is bypassed. A variant of the collusion by tunneling mentioned above can happen in the context of AS confederations. When a BGPsec router (outside of a confederation) is forwarding an UPDATE message to a Member-AS in the confederation, it signs the UPDATE message to the public AS number of the confederation and not to the member's AS number (see Section 4.3). The Member-AS can tunnel the signed UPDATE message to another Member-AS as received (i.e., without adding a signature). The UPDATE message can then be propagated using BGPsec to other confederation members or to BGPsec neighbors outside of the confederation. This kind of operation is possible, but no grave security or reachability compromise is feared for the following reasons: o The confederation members belong to one organization, and strong internal trust is expected. o Recall that the signatures that are internal to the confederation MUST be removed prior to forwarding the UPDATE message to an outside BGPsec router (see Section 4.3). BGPsec does not provide protection against attacks at the transport layer. As with any BGP session, an adversary on the path between a BGPsec speaker and its peer is able to perform attacks such as modifying valid BGPsec UPDATE messages to cause them to fail validation, injecting (unsigned) BGP UPDATE messages without BGPsec_PATH attributes, injecting BGPsec UPDATE messages with BGPsec_PATH attributes that fail validation, or causing the peer to tear down the BGP session. The use of BGPsec does nothing to increase the power of an on-path adversary -- in particular, even an on-path adversary cannot cause a BGPsec speaker to believe that a BGPsec-invalid route is valid. However, as with any BGP session, BGPsec sessions SHOULD be protected by appropriate transport security mechanisms (see the Security Considerations section in [RFC 4271]). Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 37 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 There is a possibility of replay attacks, defined as follows. In the context of BGPsec, a replay attack occurs when a malicious BGPsec speaker in the AS path suppresses a prefix withdrawal (implicit or explicit). Further, a replay attack is said to occur also when a malicious BGPsec speaker replays a previously received BGPsec announcement for a prefix that has since been withdrawn. The mitigation strategy for replay attacks involves router certificate rollover; please see [ROLLOVER] for details. 9. IANA Considerations IANA has registered a new BGP capability described in Section 2.1 in the "Capability Codes" registry's "IETF Review" range [RFC 8126]. The description for the new capability is "BGPsec Capability". This document is the reference for the new capability. IANA has also registered a new path attribute described in Section 3 in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry. The code for this new attribute is "BGPsec_PATH". This document is the reference for the new attribute. IANA has defined the "BGPsec Capability" registry in the "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)" group. The registry is as shown in Figure 10, with values assigned from Section 2.1: +------+------------------------------------+------------+ | Bits | Field | Reference | +------+------------------------------------+------------+ | 0-3 | Version | [RFC 8205] | | | Value = 0x0 | | +------+------------------------------------+------------+ | 4 | Direction | [RFC 8205] | | |(Both possible values 0 and 1 are | | | | fully specified by this RFC) | | +------+------------------------------------+------------+ | 5-7 | Unassigned | [RFC 8205] | | | Value = 000 (in binary) | | +------+------------------------------------+------------+ Figure 10: IANA Registry for BGPsec Capability The Direction bit (fourth bit) has a value of either 0 or 1, and both values are fully specified by this document. Future Version values and future values of the Unassigned bits are assigned using the "Standards Action" registration procedures defined in RFC 8126 [RFC 8126]. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 38 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 IANA has defined the "BGPsec_PATH Flags" registry in the "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)" group. The registry is as shown in Figure 11, with one value assigned from Section 3.1: +------+-------------------------------------------+------------+ | Flag | Description | Reference | +------+-------------------------------------------+------------+ | 0 | Confed_Segment | [RFC 8205] | | | Bit value = 1 means Flag set | | | | (indicates Confed_Segment) | | | | Bit value = 0 is default | | +------+-------------------------------------------+------------+ | 1-7 | Unassigned | [RFC 8205] | | | Value: All 7 bits set to zero | | +------+-------------------------------------------+------------+ Figure 11: IANA Registry for BGPsec_PATH Flags Field Future values of the Unassigned bits are assigned using the "Standards Action" registration procedures defined in RFC 8126 [RFC 8126]. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [IANA-AF] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>. [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>. [RFC 4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4271>. [RFC 4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y. Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4724, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4724>. [RFC 4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4760, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4760>. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 39 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 [RFC 5065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5065, August 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5065>. [RFC 5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5492, February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5492>. [RFC 6482] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6482, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6482>. [RFC 6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6487, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6487>. [RFC 6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6793, December 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6793>. [RFC 7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7606, August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7606>. [RFC 8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8126>. [RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>. [RFC 8208] Turner, S. and O. Borchert, "BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, and Signature Formats", RFC 8208, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8208, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8208>. [RFC 8209] Reynolds, M., Turner, S., and S. Kent, "A Profile for BGPsec Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests", RFC 8209, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8209, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8209>. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 40 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 10.2. Informative References [Borchert] Borchert, O. and M. Baer, "Subject: Modification request: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-14", message to the IETF SIDR WG Mailing List, 10 February 2016, <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ sidr/8B_e4CNxQCUKeZ_AUzsdnn2f5Mu>. [FIPS186-4] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", NIST FIPS Publication 186-4, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4, July 2013, <http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/ NIST.FIPS.186-4.pdf>. [RFC 6472] Kumari, W. and K. Sriram, "Recommendation for Not Using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP", BCP 172, RFC 6472, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6472, December 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6472>. [RFC 6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6480, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6480>. [RFC 6483] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Validation of Route Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6483, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6483, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6483>. [RFC 6810] Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol", RFC 6810, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6810, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6810>. [RFC 6811] Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6811, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6811>. [RFC 7093] Turner, S., Kent, S., and J. Manger, "Additional Methods for Generating Key Identifiers Values", RFC 7093, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7093, December 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7093>. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 41 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 [RFC 7115] Bush, R., "Origin Validation Operation Based on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 185, RFC 7115, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7115, January 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7115>. [RFC 7132] Kent, S. and A. Chi, "Threat Model for BGP Path Security", RFC 7132, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7132, February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7132>. [RFC 8181] Weiler, S., Sonalker, A., and R. Austein, "A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8181>. [RFC 8182] Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein, "The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)", RFC 8182, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8182, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8182>. [RFC 8206] George, W. and S. Murphy, "BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration", RFC 8206, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8206, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8206>. [RFC 8207] Bush, R., "BGPsec Operational Considerations", BCP 211, RFC 8207, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8207, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8207>. [RFC 8210] Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1", RFC 8210, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8210, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8210>. [ROLLOVER] Weis, B., Gagliano, R., and K. Patel, "BGPsec Router Certificate Rollover", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-01, August 2017. [SLURM] Mandelberg, D., Ma, D., and T. Bruijnzeels, "Simplified Local internet nUmber Resource Management with the RPKI", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04, March 2017. [SP800-90A] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators", NIST SP 800-90A Rev 1, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-90Ar1, June 2015, <http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/ NIST.SP.800-90Ar1.pdf>. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 42 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Michael Baer, Oliver Borchert, David Mandelberg, Mehmet Adalier, Sean Turner, Wes George, Jeff Haas, Alvaro Retana, Nevil Brownlee, Matthias Waehlisch, Tim Polk, Russ Mundy, Wes Hardaker, Sharon Goldberg, Ed Kern, Doug Maughan, Pradosh Mohapatra, Mark Reynolds, Heather Schiller, Jason Schiller, Ruediger Volk, and David Ward for their review, comments, and suggestions during the course of this work. Thanks are also due to many IESG reviewers whose comments greatly helped improve the clarity, accuracy, and presentation in the document. The authors particularly wish to acknowledge Oliver Borchert and Michael Baer for their review and suggestions [Borchert] concerning the sequence of octets to be hashed (Figures 8 and 9 in Sections 4.2 and 5.2, respectively). This was an important contribution based on their implementation experience. Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 43 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 Contributors The following people have made significant contributions to this document and should be considered co-authors: Rob Austein Dragon Research Labs Email: sra@hactrn.net Steven Bellovin Columbia University Email: smb@cs.columbia.edu Russ Housley Vigil Security Email: housley@vigilsec.com Stephen Kent BBN Technologies Email: kent@alum.mit.edu Warren Kumari Google Email: warren@kumari.net Doug Montgomery USA National Institute of Standards and Technology Email: dougm@nist.gov Chris Morrow Google, Inc. Email: morrowc@google.com Sandy Murphy SPARTA, Inc., a Parsons Company Email: sandy@tislabs.com Keyur Patel Arrcus Email: keyur@arrcus.com John Scudder Juniper Networks Email: jgs@juniper.net Samuel Weiler W3C/MIT Email: weiler@csail.mit.edu Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 44 RFC 8205 BGPsec Protocol September 2017 Authors' Addresses Matthew Lepinski (editor) New College of Florida 5800 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 United States of America Email: mlepinski@ncf.edu Kotikalapudi Sriram (editor) USA National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive Gaithersburg, MD 20899 United States of America Email: kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov Lepinski & Sriram Standards Track PAGE 45 RFC TOTAL SIZE: 115900 bytes PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, September 28th, 2017 LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)

RFC-ARCHIVE.ORG

© RFC 8205: The IETF Trust, Thursday, September 28th, 2017
© the RFC Archive, 2024, RFC-Archive.org
Maintainer: J. Tunnissen