[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 RFC 6382

INTERNET-DRAFT                               Danny McPherson
                                               Ryan Donnelly
                                                Frank Scalzo
                                              Verisign, Inc.
Expires: January 2012                           July 2, 2011
Intended Status: Best Current Practice

      Unique Per-Node Origin ASNs for Globally Anycasted Services
               <draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as-01.txt>



Status of this Memo


   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
   Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
   in effect on the date of publication of this document.  Please
   review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and
   restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License
   text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and
   are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD
   License.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
   Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
   may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
   or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html





McPherson, et al.                                               [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Abstract


   This document makes recommendations regarding the use of unique
   origin autonomous system numbers per node for globally anycasted
   critical infrastructure services in order to provide routing system
   discriminators for a given anycasted prefix.  Network management and
   monitoring techniques, or other operational mechanisms may employ
   this new discriminator in whatever manner best accommodates their
   operating environment.




































McPherson, et al.                                               [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011



Table of Contents


   1. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3. Recommendation for Unique Origin ASNs. . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4. Additional Recommendations for Globally Anycasted
   Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6. Deployment Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
    9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
    9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12


































McPherson, et al.                                               [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


1.  Terminology


   This document employs much of the following terminology, which was
   taken in full from Section 2 of [RFC 4786].

    Anycast:  the practice of making a particular Service Address
      available in multiple, discrete, autonomous locations, such that
      datagrams sent are routed to one of several available locations.

    Anycast Node:  an internally-connected collection of hosts and
      routers that together provide service for an anycast Service
      Address.  An Anycast Node might be as simple as a single host
      participating in a routing system with adjacent routers, or it
      might include a number of hosts connected in some more elaborate
      fashion; in either case, to the routing system across which the
      service is being anycast, each Anycast Node presents a unique path
      to the Service Address.  The entire anycast system for the service
      consists of two or more separate Anycast Nodes.

    Catchment:  in physical geography, an area drained by a river, also
      known as a drainage basin.  By analogy, as used in this document,
      the topological region of a network within which packets directed
      at an Anycast Address are routed to one particular node.

    Local-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
      Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
      way that a particular anycast node is only visible to a subset of
      the whole routing system.

    Local Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Local-Scope
      Anycast Address.

    Global Node:  an Anycast Node providing service using a Global-Scope
      Anycast Address.

    Global-Scope Anycast:  reachability information for the anycast
      Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
      way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the
      whole routing system.

    Service Address:  an IP address associated with a particular service
      (e.g., the destination address used by DNS resolvers to reach a
        particular authority server).

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].



McPherson, et al.                                   Section 1.  [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


2.  Introduction


   IP anycasting [RFC 4786] has been deployed for an array of network
   services since the early 1990s.  It provides a mechanism for a given
   network resource to be available in a more distributed manner,
   locally and/or globally, with a more robust and resilient footprint,
   commonly yielding better localization and absorption of systemic
   query loads, as well as better protections in the face of DDoS
   attacks, network partitions, and other similar incidents.  A large
   part of the Internet root DNS infrastructure, as well as many other
   resources, has been anycasted for nearly a decade.

   While the benefits realized by anycasting network services is proven,
   some issues do emerge with asserting routing system reachability for
   a common network identifier from multiple locations.  Specifically,
   anycasting in BGP requires injection of reachability information in
   the routing system for a common IP address prefix from multiple
   locations.  These anycasted prefixes and network services have
   traditionally employed a common origin autonomous system number (ASN)
   in order to preserve historically scarce 16-bit AS number space
   utilized by BGP for routing domain identifiers in the global routing
   system. Additionally, a common origin AS number was used in order to
   ease management overhead of resource operations associated with
   acquiring and maintaining multiple discrete AS numbers, as well as to
   avoid triggering various operations- oriented reporting functions
   aimed at identifying "inconsistent origin AS announcements" observed
   in the routing system.  As a result, the representation of routing
   system path attributes associated with those service instances, and
   that anycasted prefix itself, typically bear no per-instance
   discriminators in the routing system (i.e., within the network
   control plane itself).

   Service level query capabilities may or may not provide a mechanism
   to identify which anycast node responded to a particular query,
   although this is likely both service (e.g., DNS or NTP) and
   implementation dependent.  For example, NSD, Unbound, and BIND all
   provide 'hostname.bind or hostname.id' [HNAME] query support that
   enables service-level identification of a given server.  Tools such
   as traceroute are also used to determine which location a given query
   is being routed to, although it may not reveal local-scope anycast
   instances, or if there are multiple servers within a given anycast
   node, which of the servers responded to a given query, in particular
   when multiple servers within an anycast node are connected to a
   single IP router.  When utilizing these service level capabilities,
   query responses are typically both deterministic and inherently
   topology-dependent, however, these service level identifiers at the
   data plane provide no control plane (routing system) uniqueness.



McPherson, et al.                                   Section 2.  [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


   As more services are globally anycasted, and existing anycasted
   services realize wider deployment of anycast nodes for a given
   service address in order to accommodate growing system loads, the
   difficulty of providing safeguards and controls to better protect
   those resources expands.  Intuitively, the more widely distributed a
   given anycasted service address is, the more difficult it becomes for
   network operators to detect operational and security issues that
   affect that service.  Some examples of such security and operational
   issues include BGP route leaks affecting the anycasted service, rogue
   anycast nodes appearing for the service, or the emergence of other
   aberrant behavior in either the routing system, the forward query
   datapath, or query response datapath.  Diagnosis of the routing
   system issues is complicated by the fact that no unique
   discriminators exist in the routing system to identify a given local
   or global anycast node.  Furthermore, both datapath and routing
   system problem identification is compounded by the fact that these
   incident types can be topologically-dependent, and only observable
   between a given client-server set.

   Additionally, while it goes without saying that many anycasted
   services strive for exact synchronization across all instances of an
   anycasted service address, if local policies or data plane response
   manipulation techniques were to "influence" responses within a given
   region in such a way that those responses are no longer authentic or
   that they diverge from what other nodes within an anycasted service
   were providing, then it should be an absolute necessity that those
   modified resources only be utilized by service consumers within that
   region or influencer's jurisdiction.

   Mechanisms should exist at both the network and service layer to make
   it abundantly apparent to operators and users alike whether any of
   the query responses are not authentic.  For DNS, DNSSEC [RFC 4033]
   provides this capability at the service layer with object level
   integrity, assuming validation is being performed by recursive name
   servers, and DNSSEC deployment at the root and top level domain (TLD)
   levels is well underway [DNSSEC-DEPLOY].  Furthermore, control plane
   discriminators should exist to enable operators to know toward which
   of a given set of instances a query is being directed, and to enable
   detection and alerting capabilities when this changes.  Such
   discriminators may also be employed to enable anycast node preference
   or filtering keys, should local operational policy require it.










McPherson, et al.                                   Section 2.  [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


3.  Recommendation for Unique Origin ASNs


   In order to be able to better detect changes to routing information
   associated with critical anycasted resources, globally anycasted
   services with partitioned origin ASNs SHOULD utilize a unique origin
   ASN per node where possible, if appropriate in their operating
   environment and service model.

   Discrete origin ASNs per node provide a discriminator in the routing
   system that would enable detection of leaked or hijacked instances
   more quickly, and would also enable operators that so choose to
   proactively develop routing policies that express preferences or
   avoidance for a given node or set of nodes associated with an
   anycasted service.  This is particularly useful when it is observed
   that local policy or known issues exist with the performance or
   authenticity of responses returned from a specific anycast node, or
   that enacted policies meant to affect service within a particular
   region are affecting users outside of that region as a result of a
   given anycast catchment expanding beyond its intended scope.

   Furthermore, inconsistent origin AS announcements associated with
   anycasted services for critical infrastructure SHOULD NOT be deemed
   undesirable by routing system reporting functions, but should instead
   be embraced in order to better identify the connectedness and
   footprint of a given anycasted service.

   While namespace conservation and reasonable use of AS number
   resources should always be a goal, the introduction of 32-bit ASNs
   significantly lessens concerns in this space.  Globally anycasted
   resources, in particular those associated with critical
   infrastructure-enabling services such as root and TLD name servers,
   SHOULD warrant special consideration with regard to AS number
   allocation practices during policy development by the constituents of
   those responsible organizations (e.g., the Regional Internet
   Registries).  Additionally, defining precisely what constitutes
   "critical infrastructure services" or "special consideration" (e.g.,
   some small range of 32-bit AS numbers might be provided) is left to
   the constituents of those organizations.  Additionally, critical
   infrastructure employment of 32-bit ASNs for new nodes might well
   help to foster more rapid adoption of native 32-bit ASN support by
   network operators.

   One additional benefit of unique origin AS numbers per anycast node
   is that Resource PKI (RPKI) Secure Inter-domain Routing [SIDR]
   machinery, and in particular, that of Route Origin Authorizations
   (ROAs), and routing policies that may be derived based on those ROAs,
   can be employed with per anycast node resolution, rather than relying



McPherson, et al.                                   Section 3.  [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


   on a single ROA and common origin AS to cover all instantiations of
   an anycasted prefix (possibly hundreds) within the global routing
   system.  For example, deployments that incorporate partitioned ASN
   anycast models that have a single ASN bound to all nodes but cross
   organizational or political boundaries, a situation may arise where
   nobody would be deemed appropriate to hold the key for the ROA.
   Additionally, a globally anycasted service within a given IP prefix
   that shares a common ASN might be taken totally offline because of
   the revocation of a ROA for that origin ASN.  The RPKI model today
   already inherently accommodates issuance of multiple ROAs with unique
   origins for a given prefix.




4.  Additional Recommendations for Globally Anycasted Services


   Two additional recommendations for globally anycasted critical
   infrastructure services are related to publication of information
   associated with a given node's physical location, and which adjacent
   upstream ASNs an origin AS interconnects with.  The former would
   allow operators to better define and optimize preferences associated
   with a given node to align with local policy and service
   optimizations.  The latter would allow expression through policy such
   as Routing Policy Specification Language [RFC 4012] specified in
   Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) in a manner that illustrates a
   discrete set of upstream ASNs for each anycast node, rather than the
   current model where all upstream ASNs associated with a common origin
   AS may or may not be expressed.  This information would provide an
   additional level of static routing policy or monitoring and detection
   models by network operators, and perhaps explicit network layer
   source address validation in the datapath.



5.  Security Considerations


   The recommendations made in this memo aim to provide more flexibility
   for network operators hoping to better monitor and prevent issues
   related to globally anycasted critical infrastructure resources.
   Anycast itself provides considerable benefit in the face of certain
   attacks, yet if a given instance of a service can appear at many
   points in the routing system and legitimate instances are difficult
   to distinguish from malicious ones, then anycast expands the
   service's attack surface rather than reducing it.




McPherson, et al.                                   Section 5.  [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


   The recommendations made in this document are expressed to assist
   with visibility and policy specification capabilities in order to
   improve the availability of critical Internet resources.  Use cases
   where the recommendations outlined in this memo may have helped to
   more easily detect or scope the impact of a particular incident are
   illustrated in [RENESYS-BLOG].

   Furthermore, while application layer protection mechanisms such as
   DNSSEC provide object level integrity and authentication, they often
   do so at the cost of introducing more failure conditions.  For
   example, if a recursive name server is performing DNSSEC validator
   functions and receives a bogus response to a given query as a result
   of a man-in-the-middle (MITM) or injected spoofed response packet
   such as a cache poisoning attempt, the possibility might exist that
   the response packet is processed by the server and results in some
   temporal or persistent DoS condition on the recursive name server and
   for its client set.  The unique origin AS mechanism outlined in this
   document provides the capability for network operators to expressly
   avoid anycast node catchments known to regularly elicit bogus
   responses, while allowing the anycasted service address to remain
   available otherwise.




6.  Deployment Considerations


   Maintenance of unique ASNs for each node within an anycasted service
   may be challenging for some critical infrastructure service operators
   initially, but for globally anycasted resources there needs to be
   some type of per-node discriminator in the control plane to enable
   detection, remediation, and optimally, preventative controls for
   dealing with routing system anomalies that are intensified by the
   application of IP anycasting.  Additionally, this technique sets the
   stage to employ RPKI-enabled machinery and more secure and explicit
   routing policies, which all network operators should be considering.

   The granularity of data publication related to anycast node location
   should be left to the devises of each services operator, and the
   value of this mechanism in each operators unique environment, but
   some reasonable level of detail to enable operators and service
   consumers to make informed decisions that align with their security
   and operational objectives as outlined herein should be provided by
   each critical services operator.

   Adjacent AS information for a given origin AS can be obtained through
   careful routing system analysis already when prefixes are advertised



McPherson, et al.                                   Section 6.  [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


   via a given set of AS adjacencies, and therefore should present no
   new threat.  However, network interconnection and peering policies
   may well present some challenges in this area.  For example, if a
   technique such as unique origin AS per node is employed then a single
   organizaton may no longer have a single AS for interconnection at
   each location, and interconnection policies should expressly consider
   this.  That said, interconnection with networks that provide critical
   infrastructure services should certainly be given due consideration
   as such by network operators when evaluating interconnection
   strategies.

   Some root and TLD operators today identify erroneous anycast prefix
   announcements by detecting prefix announcements with an origin AS
   other than the common origin AS shared via all nodes.  This detection
   model would need to be expanded to account for unique origin ASNs per
   node if a given service operators chooses to employ such a model, and
   given that AS paths are trivial to manipulate in the current system,
   the above technique would only assist in the event of unintentional
   configuration errors that reoriginate the route (e.g., it doesn't
   even detect leaks that preserve the initial path elements).  In that
   case, work underway on routing security origin and path validation in
   the SIDR working group and beyond should be consulted.

   While local policy based on any BGP attributes, to include AS path
   information, can influence policy within a local administrative
   domain and possibly downstream, there exists a possibly that upstream
   nodes continue to use a route deemed undesirable by the local admin
   once data packets reach that network.  Network operators must
   understand the implications of this property in their operating
   environment, as it is inherent in all Interent routing.

   Finally, anycast node presence at exchange points that employ route
   servers may make enumeration of adjacent ASNs for a given node
   challenging.  While this is understood, service operators should make
   every effort to enumerate the set of adjacent ASNs associated with a
   given anycast node's origin AS.  Without express understanding of
   legitimate AS interconnection and authorized origin AS information,
   more secure routing is difficult to achieve.




7.  Acknowledgements


   Thanks to David Conrad, Steve Kent, Mark Kosters, Andrei Robachevsky,
   Paul Vixie, Brad Verd, Andrew Herrmann, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Joe
   Abley, Benson Schliesser, Shane Amante, Hugo Salgado, and Randy Bush



McPherson, et al.                                  Section 7.  [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


   for review and comments on this concept.



8.  IANA Considerations


   This document requires no direct IANA actions, although it does
   provide general guidance to number resource allocation and policy
   development organizations, and in particular Regional Internet
   Registries, regarding allocation of AS numbers for globally anycasted
   services.



9.  References




9.1.  Normative References


   [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
     Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC 4786] Abley, J., and Lindqvist, K., "Operation of Anycast
     Services", RFC 4786, BCP 126, December 2006.



9.2.  Informative References


   [RFC 4012] Blunk, et al., "Routing Policy Specification Language
     next generation (RPSLng)", RFC 4012, March 2005.

   [RFC 4033] Arends, et al., "DNS Security Introduction and
     Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005.

   [DNSSEC-DEPLOY] "Root DNSSEC", <http://www.root-dnssec.org/>

   [HNAME] ISC, "Which F-root node am I using?"
     <http://www.isc.org/community/f-root/which_node>

   [RENESYS-BLOG] Zmijewski, E., "Accidentally Importing Censorship",
     Renesys Blog, March 30, 2010.
     <http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/03/fouling-the-global-nest.shtml>



McPherson, et al.                                Section 9.2.  [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT            Expires: January 2012                July 2011


   [SIDR] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., "An Infrastructure to Support Secure
     Internet Routing", October 2009, Internet-Draft, "Work in
   Progress".



10.  Authors' Addresses


   Danny McPherson
   Verisign, Inc.
   21345 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  USA  20166
   Phone: +1 703.948.3200

   Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com

   Ryan Donnelly
   Verisign, Inc.
   21345 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  USA  20166
   Phone: +1 703.948.3200

   Email: rdonnelly@verisign.com

   Frank Scalzo
   Verisign, Inc.
   21345 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  USA  20166
   Phone: +1 703.948.3200

   Email: fscalzo@verisign.com




Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) (2011) The IETF Trust and the persons
   identified as the document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.




McPherson, et al.                                 Section 10.  [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/