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

Versions: (draft-ymbk-bgpsec-reqs) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 7353

Network Working Group                                        S. Bellovin
Internet-Draft                                       Columbia University
Intended status: Standards Track                                 R. Bush
Expires: April 02, 2013                        Internet Initiative Japan
                                                                 D. Ward
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            October 2012


             Security Requirements for BGP Path Validation
                     draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-05

Abstract

   This document describes requirements for a future BGP security
   protocol design to provide cryptographic assurance that the origin AS
   had the right to announce the prefix and to provide assurance of the
   AS Path of the announcement.

Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 02, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.







Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Requirements for BGP Path Validation      October 2012


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Recommended Reading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   3.  General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  BGP UPDATE Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

1.  Introduction

   RPKI-based Origin Validation ([I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]) provides
   a measure of resilience to accidental mis-origination of prefixes.
   But it provides neither cryptographic assurance (announcements are
   not signed), nor assurance of the AS Path of the announcement.

   This document describes requirements to be placed on a BGP security
   protocol, herein termed BGPsec, intended to rectify these gaps.

   The threat model assumed here is documented in [RFC4593] and [I-D
   .ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats].

   As noted in the threat model, [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats], this
   work is limited to threats to the BGP protocol.  Issues of business
   relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset,
   while important are outside the scope of the working group and
   therefore this document.  It is hoped that these issues will be
   better understood in the future.

2.  Recommended Reading

   This document assumes knowledge of the RPKI see [RFC6480], the RPKI
   Repository Structure, see [RFC6481].

   This document assumes ongoing incremental deployment of ROAs, see
   [RFC6482], the RPKI to Router Protocol, see [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr],
   and RPKI-based Prefix Validation, see [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate].



Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Requirements for BGP Path Validation      October 2012

   And, of course, a knowledge of BGP [RFC4271] is required.

3.  General Requirements

   The following are general requirements for a BGPsec protocol:

   3.1 A BGPsec design must allow the receiver of a BGP announcement to
      determine, to a strong level of certainty, that the received PATH
      attribute accurately represents the sequence of eBGP exchanges
      that propagated the prefix from the origin AS to the receiver.

   3.2 A BGPsec design must allow the receiver of an announcement to
      detect if an AS has added or deleted any AS number other than its
      own in the path attribute.  This includes modification to the
      number of AS prepends.

   3.3 A BGPsec design MUST be amenable to incremental deployment.  Any
      incompatible protocol capabilities MUST be negotiated.

   3.4 A BGPsec design MUST provide analysis of the operational
      considerations for deployment and particularly of incremental
      deployment, e.g, contiguous islands, non-contiguous islands,
      universal deployment, etc..

   3.5 As cryptographic payloads and memory requirements on routers are
      likely to increase, a BGPsec design MAY require use of new
      hardware.  I.e.  compatibility with current hardware abilities is
      not a requirement that this document imposes on a solution.  As
      BGPsec will likely not be rolled out for some years, this should
      not be a major problem.

   3.6 A BGPsec design need not prevent attacks on data plane traffic.
      It need not provide assurance that the data plane even follows the
      control plane.

   3.7 A BGPsec design MUST resist attacks by an enemy who has access to
      the inter-router link layer, per Section 3.1.1.2 of [RFC4593].  In
      particular, such a design must provide mechanisms for
      authentication of all data, including protecting against message
      insertion, deletion, modification, or replay.  Mechanisms that
      suffice include TCP sessions authenticated with TCP-AO [RFC5925],
      IPsec [RFC4301], or TLS [RFC5246].

   3.8 It is assumed that a BGPsec design will require information about
      holdings of address space and ASNs, and assertions about binding
      of address space to ASNs.  A BGPsec design MAY make use of a
      security infrastructure (e.g., a PKI) to distribute such
      authenticated data.

   3.9 [ this point should probably be removed.  it remains to keep
      numbering for the moment ] If message signing increases message
      size, the 4096 byte limit on BGP PDU size MAY be removed, see [I-D
      .ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages].


Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Requirements for BGP Path Validation      October 2012


   3.10 It is entirely OPTIONAL to secure AS SETs and prefix
      aggregation.  The long range solution to this is the deprecation
      of AS-SETs, see [I-D.ietf-idr-deprecate-as-sets].

   3.11 If a BGPsec design uses signed prefixes, given the difficulty of
      splitting a signed message while preserving the signature, it need
      NOT handle multiple prefixes in a single UPDATE PDU.

   3.12 A BGPsec design MUST enable each BGPsec speaker to configure use
      of the security mechanism on a per-peer basis.

   3.13 A BGPsec design MUST provide backward compatibility in the
      message formatting, transmission, and processing of routing
      information carried through a mixed security environment.  Message
      formatting in a fully secured environment MAY be handled in a non-
      backward compatible manner.

   3.14 While the trust level of an NLRI should be determined by the
      BGPsec protocol, local routing preference and policy MUST then be
      applied to best path and other decisions.  Such mechanisms MUST
      conform with [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].

   3.15 A BGPsec design MUST support 'transparent' route servers,
      meaning that the AS of the route server is not counted in
      downstream BGP AS-path-length tie-breaking decisions.

   3.16 A BGPsec design SHOULD support AS aliasing.  This technique is
      not well-defined or universally implemented, but is being
      documentd in [I-D.ga-idr-as-migration].

   3.17 If a BGPsec design makes use of a security infrastructure, that
      infrastructure SHOULD enable each network operator to select the
      entities it will trust when authenticating data in the security
      infrastructure.  See, for example, [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt].

   3.18 A BGPsec design MUST NOT require operators to reveal more than
      is currently revealed in the operational inter-domain routing
      environment, other than the inclusion of necessary security
      credentials to allow others to ascertain for themselves the
      necessary degree of assurance regarding the validity of NLRI
      received via BGPsec.  This includes peering, customer, and
      provider relationships, an ISP's internal infrastructure, etc.  It
      is understood that some data are revealed to the savvy seeker by
      BGP, traceroute, etc.  today.

   3.19 A BGPsec design SHOULD flag security exceptions which are
      significant enough to be logged.  The specific data to be logged
      are an implementation matter.

   3.20 Any routing information database MUST be re-authenticated
      periodically or in an event-driven manner, especially in response
      to events such as, for example, PKI updates.


Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Requirements for BGP Path Validation      October 2012


   3.21 A BGPsec design SHOULD accommodate AS 'migration' techniques
      such as common proprietary and non-standard methods which allow a
      router to have two AS identities, without lengthening the
      effective AS Path.

   3.22 Any inter-AS use of cryptographic hashes or signatures, MUST
      provide mechanisms for algorithm agility.

   3.23 A BGPsec design SHOULD NOT presume to know the intent of the
      originator of a NLRI, nor that of any AS on the AS Path.

   3.24 A BGP listener SHOULD NOT trust non-BGPsec markings, such as
      communities, across trust boundaries.

4.  BGP UPDATE Security Requirements

   The following requirements MUST be met in the processing of BGP
   UPDATE messages:

   4.1 A BGPsec design MUST enable each recipient of an UPDATE to
      formally validate that the origin AS in the message is authorized
      to originate a route to the prefix(es) in the message.

   4.2 A BGPsec design MUST enable the recipient of an UPDATE to
      formally determine that the NLRI has traversed the AS path
      indicated in the UPDATE.  Note that this is more stringent than
      showing that the path is merely not impossible.

   4.3 Replay of BGP UPDATE messages need not be completely prevented,
      but a BGPsec design MUST provide a mechanism to control the window
      of exposure to replay attacks.

   4.4 A BGPsec design SHOULD provide some level of assurance that the
      origin of a prefix is still 'alive', i.e.  that a monkey in the
      middle has not withheld a WITHDRAW message or the effects thereof.

   4.5 NLRI of the UPDATE message SHOULD be able to be authenticated as
      the message is processed.

   4.6 Normal sanity checks of received announcements MUST be done, e.g.
      verification that the first element of the AS_PATH list
      corresponds to the locally configured AS of the peer from which
      the UPDATE was received.

   4.7 The output of a router applying BGPsec to a received signed
      UPDATE MUST be either unequivocal and conform to a fully specified
      state in the design.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document asks nothing of the IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Requirements for BGP Path Validation      October 2012


   The data plane may not follow the control plane.

   Security for subscriber traffic is outside the scope of this
   document, and of BGP security in general.  IETF standards for payload
   data security should be employed.  While adoption of BGP security
   measures may ameliorate some classes of attacks on traffic, these
   measures are not a substitute for use of subscriber-based security.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The author wishes to thank the authors of [I-D.ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec]
   from whom we liberally stole, Russ Housley, Geoff Huston, Steve Kent,
   Sandy Murphy, Eric Osterweil, John Scudder, Sam Weiler, and a number
   of others.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats]
              Kent, S. and A. Chi, "Threat Model for BGP Path Security",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-03,
              September 2012.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4593]  Barbir, A., Murphy, S. and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to
              Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, October 2006.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A. and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ga-idr-as-migration]
              George, W. and S. Amante, "Autonomous System (AS)
              Migration Features and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH
              Attribute", Internet-Draft draft-ga-idr-as-migration-00,
              September 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages]
              Patel, K., Ward, D. and R. Bush, "Extended Message support
              for BGP", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-
              messages-03, July 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-deprecate-as-sets]
              Kumari, W. and K. Sriram, "Recommendation for Not Using
              AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP", Internet-Draft draft-
              ietf-idr-deprecate-as-sets-06, October 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec]


Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Requirements for BGP Path Validation      October 2012

              Christian, B. and T. Tauber, "BGP Security Requirements",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-10, November
              2008.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-ltamgmt]
              Reynolds, M., Kent, S. and M. Lepinski, "Local Trust
              Anchor Management for the Resource Public Key
              Infrastructure", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-sidr-
              ltamgmt-07, October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]
              Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R. and R.
              Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", Internet-Draft
              draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-10, October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr]
              Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The RPKI/Router Protocol",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26, February 2012.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T. and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.

   [RFC6481]  Huston, G., Loomans, R. and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
              Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
              February 2012.

   [RFC6482]  Lepinski, M., Kent, S. and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
              Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, February 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Steven M. Bellovin
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, New York 10027
   US

   Phone: +1 212 939 7149
   Email: bellovin@acm.org







Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Requirements for BGP Path Validation      October 2012


   Randy Bush
   Internet Initiative Japan
   5147 Crystal Springs
   Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
   US

   Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1
   Email: randy@psg.com


   David Ward
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   USA

   Email: dward@cisco.com




































Bellovin, et al.         Expires April 02, 2013                 [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/