draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-02.txt   draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03.txt 
Network Working Group R. Bush Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan
Intended status: Standards Track April 26, 2018 Updates: 6811 (if approved) July 25, 2018
Expires: October 28, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 26, 2019
Origin Validation Clarifications Origin Validation Clarifications
draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-02 draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03
Abstract Abstract
Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among
other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas, which other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas: which
routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified
by configuration. This document is meant to clarify possible by configuration. This document is meant to clarify possible
misunderstandings causing those mis-implementations. misunderstandings causing those mis-implementations; and thus updates
RFC6811 by clarifying that all prefixes should be marked, and that
policy must not be applied without operator configuration"
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
be interpreted as described in [RFC8174] only when they appear in all be interpreted as described in [RFC8174] only when they appear in all
upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English
words, without normative meaning. words, without normative meaning.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 43 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
2. Suggested Reading 2. Suggested Reading
It is assumed that the reader understands BGP, [RFC4271], the RPKI, It is assumed that the reader understands BGP, [RFC4271], the RPKI,
[RFC6480], Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs), [RFC6482], and RPKI- [RFC6480], Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs), [RFC6482], and RPKI-
based Prefix Validation, [RFC6811]. based Prefix Validation, [RFC6811].
3. Mark ALL Prefixes 3. Mark ALL Prefixes
Significant Clarification: A router MUST mark all routes in BGP Significant Clarification: A router MUST mark all routes in BGP
coming from any source (eBGP, iBGP, or redistribution from static), coming from any source (eBGP, iBGP, or redistribution from static,
unless specifically configured otherwise by the operator. Else the connected, etc.), unless specifically configured otherwise by the
operator does not have the ability to drop Invalid routes coming from operator. Else the operator does not have the ability to drop
every potential source; and is therefore liable to complaints from Invalid routes coming from every potential source; and is therefore
neighbors about propagation of Invalid routes. For this reason, liable to complaints from neighbors about propagation of Invalid
[RFC6811] says routes. For this reason, [RFC6811] says
"When a BGP speaker receives an UPDATE from a neighbor, it SHOULD "When a BGP speaker receives an UPDATE from a neighbor, it SHOULD
perform a lookup as described above for each of the Routes in the perform a lookup as described above for each of the Routes in the
UPDATE message. The lookup SHOULD also be applied to routes that are UPDATE message. The lookup SHOULD also be applied to routes that are
redistributed into BGP from another source, such as another protocol redistributed into BGP from another source, such as another protocol
or a locally defined static route." or a locally defined static route."
[RFC6811] goes on to say "An implementation MAY provide configuration [RFC6811] goes on to say "An implementation MAY provide configuration
options to control which routes the lookup is applied to." options to control which routes the lookup is applied to."
skipping to change at page 3, line 21 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
there is no AS_PATH in the input to allow RPKI validation of the there is no AS_PATH in the input to allow RPKI validation of the
originating AS. In such cases, the router SHOULD use the AS of the originating AS. In such cases, the router SHOULD use the AS of the
router's BGP configuration. If that is ambiguous because of router's BGP configuration. If that is ambiguous because of
confederation, AS migration, or other multi-AS configuration, then confederation, AS migration, or other multi-AS configuration, then
the router configuration MUST provide a means of specifying the AS to the router configuration MUST provide a means of specifying the AS to
be used on the redistribution, either per redistribution or globally. be used on the redistribution, either per redistribution or globally.
4. Marking not Acting 4. Marking not Acting
Significant Clarification: Once routes are marked, the operator Significant Clarification: Once routes are marked, the operator
should be in complete control of any policy applied based the should be in complete control of any policy applied based on the
markings. Absent specific operator configuration, policy MUST NOT be markings. Absent specific operator configuration, policy MUST NOT be
applied. applied.
Automatic origin validation policy actions such as those described in Automatic origin validation policy actions such as those described in
[RFC8097], BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community, [RFC8097], BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community,
MUST NOT be carried out or otherwise applied unless specifically MUST NOT be carried out or otherwise applied unless specifically
configured by the operator. configured by the operator.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 16 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/