Filtering Out RPKI Data by Type based on Enhanced SLURM Filters
draft-fu-sidrops-enhanced-slurm-filter-00
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yu Fu , Nan Geng | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-16 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-fu-sidrops-enhanced-slurm-filter-00
sidrops Y. Fu
Internet-Draft China Unicom
Intended status: Standards Track N. Geng
Expires: 18 September 2024 Huawei
17 March 2024
Filtering Out RPKI Data by Type based on Enhanced SLURM Filters
draft-fu-sidrops-enhanced-slurm-filter-00
Abstract
Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI
(SLURM) helps operators create a local view of the global RPKI by
generating sets of filters and assertions. This document proposes to
filter out RPKI data by type based on enhanced SLURM filters. Only
the RPKI data types that the network or routers are interested in
will appear in the Relay Party's output.
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 https://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 18 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Enhanced SLURM Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Design 1: RPKI Data Type Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. RPKI Data Type Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Design 2: Special ASNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Relay Party (RP) collects signed RPKI objects from global RPKI
publication points. The RPKI data passing RP's validation will
appear in RP's output. Then, the RPKI-to-Router (RTR) protocol
[RFC6810][RFC8210][I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis] will synchronize the
validated RPKI data from RP to routers. Currently, four types of
RPKI data including IPv4 Prefix, IPv6 Prefix, Router Key, and ASPA
are supported in the RTR protocol.
However, in some cases, routers may be interested in a part of RPKI
data types, instead of all [I-D.geng-sidrops-rtr-selective-sync]. In
such cases, storing unused data on the router is unreasonable, and
synchronizing all types of data will induce some unnecessary
transmission and storage overhead. Furthermore, there may be more
types of RPKI data in the RPKI repositories and RPs, which makes the
above issue more significant and worse. The followings are example
types, and some of them may be possibly supported in the RPKI system
in the future:
* Secured Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC7909]
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
* Signed Prefix Lists [I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-prefixlist]
* Autonomous Systems Cones [I-D.ietf-grow-rpki-as-cones]
* Mapping Origin Authorizations (MOAs) [I-D.xie-sidrops-moa-profile]
* Signed SAVNET-Peering Information (SiSPI) [I-D.chen-sidrops-sispi]
* Path validation with RPKI [I-D.van-beijnum-sidrops-pathrpki]
* Signed Groupings of Autonomous System Numbers
[I-D.spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-asgroup]
SLURM provides a simple way to enable an RP to establish a local and
customized view of the RPKI ([RFC8416],
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-slurm]). It defines Validation Output Filters
to filter out specific RPKI data items and Locally Added Assertions
to add RPKI data items. Unfortunately, SLURM cannot efficiently
filter out RPKI data by type, i.e., filter out all the RPKI data
belonging to a specific type.
This document proposes enhanced SLURM filters which can filter out
RPKI data by type. With enhanced SLURM filters, operators can
efficiently select which type of RPKI data need to be synchronized to
routers.
The proposed method requires some modifications on the SLURM-related
process of RP software. Upgrades of RTR implementations and router
software implementations are not involved.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Use Cases
According to the statistics of "RFC9386 IPv6 Deployment Status"
[RFC9386], some countries, such as Brazil, China, and India, have
clearly moved towards IPv6 adoption. As of 1 January 2022, the IPv6
adoption rate of China reached as high as 60.1%, and the total number
of estimated IPv6-capable users reached to 1,207.61 million. A
survey was submitted to a group of service providers in Europe during
the third quarter of 2020 to understand their plans about IPv6 and
their technical preferences regarding its adoption. The poll
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
revealed that the majority of ISPs interviewed had plans concerning
IPv6 (79%). Of them, 60% had ongoing activities already, while 33%
were expected to start activities in a 12-month time frame.
With the rapid deployment of IPv6, more and more IPv6-only operator
networks are likely to emerge. For example, the China Education and
Research Network named as FITI under construction will be an
IPv6-only network. Operators, like China Unicom, are also planning
to build IPv6-only networks.
+------------+
| Rely |
| Party |
+------------+
/ \
/ \
/ \
+----------------------------------------------------------+
BGP IPv6| BGP | ISP | BGP |BGP IPv6
---------+ | IPv6 only Network | +-------
routes | Router | | Router |routes
+----------------------------------------------------------+
In IPv6-only networks as shown in the above figure, IPv4 RPKI data
(e.g., IPv4 Prefix data) is unnecessary for the networks to do BGP
route validation. These unnecessary data may waste the storage of
routers, induce some unnecessary transmission overhead and waste the
energy power of the routers.
3. Enhanced SLURM Filters
This section proposes two optional designs.
3.1. Design 1: RPKI Data Type Filters
A SLURM file consists of a single JSON [RFC8259] object containing
the following members:
* A "slurmVersion" member that MUST be set to 3, encoded as a number
* A "validationOutputFilters" member whose value is an object. The
object MUST contain exactly four members:
- A "prefixFilters" member, see Section 3.3.1 [RFC8416]
- A "bgpsecFilters" member, see section 3.3.2 [RFC8416]
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
- A "aspaFilters" member, see Section 3.1
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-slurm]
- A "typeFilters" member
* A "locallyAddedAssertions" member whose value is an object. The
object MUST contain exactly three members:
- A "prefixAssertions" member, see Section 3.4.1 [RFC8416]
- A "bgpsecAssertions" member, see Section 3.4.2 [RFC8416]
- A "aspaAssertions" member, see Section 3.2
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-slurm]
The following JSON structure with JSON members represents a SLURM
file that has no filters or assertions:
{
"slurmVersion": 2,
"validationOutputFilters": {
"aspaFilters": [],
"bgpsecFilters": [],
"prefixFilters": [],
"typeFilters": []
},
"locallyAddedAssertions": {
"aspaAssertions": [],
"bgpsecAssertions": [],
"prefixAssertions": []
}
}
3.1.1. RPKI Data Type Filters
There are currently four types of RPKI data (which follows the RTR
PDU definitions). The number of data types may increase with time.
* IPv4 Prefix
* IPv6 Prefix
* Router Key
* ASPA
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
The RP can configure zero or at most four RPKI Data Type Filters
("Type Filter" for short). Each Type Filter contains a single
'rpkiDataType' and optionally a single 'comment'.
* The 'rpkiDataType' member MUST be one of the values, i.e., "IPv4
Prefix", "IPv6 Prefix", "Router Key", and "ASPA".
* It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is included with
each Type Filter so that it can be shown to users of the RP
software.
Any RPKI data item that matches any configured Type Filter MUST be
removed from the RP's output.
A RPKI data item is considered to match with a Type Filter if the
following condition applies: The item is considered to match if the
RPKI data type of the item is equal to the "rpkiDataType" value of
Type Filter.
The following example JSON structure represents a "typeFilter" member
with one object as described above:
"typeFilter": [
{
"rpkiDataType": "IPv4 Prefix",
"comment": "Filter out VRPs with IPv4 Prefixes"
}
]
When a type of RPKI data is to be filtered out, the corresponding
Filters and Assertions MUST be ignored. In the above JSON example,
the prefixFilters with IPv4 prefixes and the prefixAssertions with
IPv4 prefixes will be ignored by RP.
3.2. Design 2: Special ASNs
A SLURM file consists of a single JSON [RFC8259] object which has the
same structure as [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-slurm], except that the
"slurmVersion" member MUST be set to 3.
The structure of ROA filters, BGPsec filters, and ASPA filters are
not changed.
To filter out a specific type of RPKI data, a special value (e.g.,
65535. The value is TBD) can be set to the "asn" member of the above
filters.
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
The following example JSON structure represents a "prefixFilters"
member with one object as described above:
"prefixFilters": [
{
"asn": 65535,
"comment": "Filter out VRPs with IPv4 and IPv6 Prefixes"
}
]
When a type of RPKI data is to be filtered out, the corresponding
Filters and Assertions MUST be ignored. In the above JSON example,
the other prefixFilters and all the prefixAssertions will be ignored
by RP.
To filter only IPv4 Prefixes, two special values can be used, i.e.,
one is for IPv4 and the other is for IPv6. The concret design is
TBD.
4. Security Considerations
The security considerations in Section 6 of [RFC8416] are also
applied to this document.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC8416] Ma, D., Mandelberg, D., and T. Bruijnzeels, "Simplified
Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI
(SLURM)", RFC 8416, DOI 10.17487/RFC8416, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8416>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC6810] Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol", RFC 6810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6810, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6810>.
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
[RFC8210] Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1",
RFC 8210, DOI 10.17487/RFC8210, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8210>.
[RFC9386] Fioccola, G., Volpato, P., Palet Martinez, J., Mishra, G.,
and C. Xie, "IPv6 Deployment Status", RFC 9386,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9386, April 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9386>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis]
Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 2", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-
12, 4 March 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-12>.
[I-D.geng-sidrops-rtr-selective-sync]
Geng, N., Zhuang, S., and M. Huang, "Selective
Synchronization for RPKI to Router Protocol", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-geng-sidrops-rtr-
selective-sync-02, 3 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-geng-sidrops-
rtr-selective-sync-02>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-slurm]
Snijders, J. and B. Cartwright-Cox, "Simplified Local
Internet Number Resource Management (SLURM) with RPKI
Autonomous System Provider Authorizations (ASPA)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-slurm-
00, 29 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
aspa-slurm-00>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
[RFC7909] Kisteleki, R. and B. Haberman, "Securing Routing Policy
Specification Language (RPSL) Objects with Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Signatures", RFC 7909,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7909, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7909>.
[I-D.van-beijnum-sidrops-pathrpki]
van Beijnum, I., "Path validation with RPKI", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-van-beijnum-sidrops-
pathrpki-00, 20 June 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-van-beijnum-
sidrops-pathrpki-00>.
[I-D.ietf-grow-rpki-as-cones]
Snijders, J., stucchi-lists@glevia.com, and M. Aelmans,
"RPKI Autonomous Systems Cones: A Profile To Define Sets
of Autonomous Systems Numbers To Facilitate BGP
Filtering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
grow-rpki-as-cones-02, 24 April 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-
rpki-as-cones-02>.
[I-D.spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-asgroup]
Snijders, J. and F. Korsbäck, "A profile for RPKI Signed
Groupings of Autonomous System Numbers (ASGroup)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-
asgroup-00, 16 November 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spaghetti-
sidrops-rpki-asgroup-00>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-prefixlist]
Snijders, J. and G. Huston, "A profile for Signed Prefix
Lists for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
sidrops-rpki-prefixlist-02, 29 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
rpki-prefixlist-02>.
[I-D.xie-sidrops-moa-profile]
Xie, C., Dong, G., and X. Li, "A Profile for Mapping
Origin Authorizations (MOAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-xie-sidrops-moa-profile-01, 1 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-sidrops-
moa-profile-01>.
[I-D.chen-sidrops-sispi]
Chen, L., Liu, L., Li, D., and L. Qin, "A Profile of
Signed SAVNET-Peering Information (SiSPI) Object for
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Enhanced SLURM Filters March 2024
Deploying Inter-domain SAVNET", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-chen-sidrops-sispi-00, 22 February
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-
sidrops-sispi-00>.
Acknowledgements
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Yu Fu
China Unicom
Beijing
China
Email: fuy186@chinaunicom.cn
Nan Geng
Huawei
Beijing
China
Email: gengnan@huawei.com
Fu & Geng Expires 18 September 2024 [Page 10]