Finding and Using Geofeed Data
draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-00

Network Working Group                                         M. Candela
Internet-Draft                                                       NTT
Intended status: Standards Track                                 R. Bush
Expires: March 4, 2021                                      IIJ & Arrcus
                                                               W. Kumari
                                                                  Google
                                                         August 31, 2020

                     Finding and Using Geofeed Data
                 draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-00

Abstract

   This document describes how to find and to prudently use geofeed
   data.

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 March 4, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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.

Candela, et al.           Expires March 4, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Finding Geofeeds                 August 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Geofeed Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  inet-num: Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Authenticating Geofeed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Scurity Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Providers of Internet content and other services may wish to
   customize those services based on the geographic location of the user
   of the service.  This is often done using the source IP address used
   to contact the service.  Additionally, infrastructure and other
   services might wish to publish the locale of their services.
   [RFC8805]) defines geofeed, a syntax to associate geographic locales
   with IP addresses.  But it does not specify how to find the relevant
   geofeed data given an IP address.  This document specifies how to
   augment the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL), [RFC2622]
   inet-num: class, [INETNUM] to refer to geofeed data, and how to
   prudently use them.

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.  Geofeed Files

   Geofeed files are described in [RFC8805].  They provide a facility
   for an IP prefix 'owner' to associate those IP addresses to
   geographic locale(s).

   Content providers and other parties who wish to locate an IP address
   to a geographic locale need to find the relevant geofeed data.  In
   Section 3 this document specifies how to find the relevant geofeed
   file given an IP address.

Candela, et al.           Expires March 4, 2021                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Finding Geofeeds                 August 2020

   This document also suggests optional data for geofeed files to
   provide stronger authenticity to the data.

3.  inet-num: Class

   RPSL, [RFC2622], as used by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs),
   has been augmented with the inet-num: class [INETNUM].

   Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL Geofeed
   attribute in the inet-num: class.  Until such time, this document
   defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains a
   URL referring to a public web page containing a geofeed file.  The
   format MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed " followed by a
   URL which will vary.

       inet-num: 192.0.2.0/24 #example
       remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed/

4.  Authenticating Geofeed Data

   The question arises on whether a particular geofeed data set is
   authentic, i.e. authorized by the 'owner' of the IP address space and
   is authoritative in some sense.  The inet-num: which points to the
   geofeed file provides some authentication.  Unfortunately the RPSL in
   many repositories is weakly authenticated at best.

   An optional authenticator MAY be appended to a geofeed file.  It
   would essentially be a digest of the main body of the file signed by
   the private key of the relevant RPKI certificate for the covering
   prefix.  One needs a format that bundles the relevant RPKI
   certificate with the signature and the digest of the geofeed text.

   Borrowing detached signatures from [RFC5485], after text file
   canonicalization (Sec 2.2), the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
   [RFC3852] would be used to create a detached DER encoded signature
   which is then BASE64 encoded and line wrapped to 72 or fewer
   characters.

   As the signer would need to specify the covered RPKI resources
   relevant to the signature, the RPKI certificate covering the inet-
   num: object's prefix would be included in the [RFC3852] CMS
   SignedData certificates field.

   Identifying the private key associated with the certificate, and
   getting the department with the HSM to sign the CMS blob is left as
   an exercise for the implementor.  On the other hand, verifying the
   signature requires no complexity; the certificate, which can be
   validated in the public RPKI, has the needed public key.

Candela, et al.           Expires March 4, 2021                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              Finding Geofeeds                 August 2020

   Until [RFC8805] is updated to formally define such an appendix, it
   may be 'hidden' as a series of "#" comments at the end of the geofeed
   file.

       # RPKI Signature: 192.0.2.0/24
       # MIIGugYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIDTALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwKQYLKoZIhvcNAQkQARig
       # GgQYMBYCAhzRMBAwDgQCAAoIIEuDCCBLQwggOcoAMCAQICAwDe4TANBgkqhkiG
       # 9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQ0VBREI5Mzk2MTFDOTFGMDI3REI1NjNGQ0NDNUI5
       # REUxMB4XDTE5MTIxOTE4NDMDAxMDEwM1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoNjdBMDlDM0Ux
       # RkE2MDhCRjI0NjkzQjU0NTRDREOTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCC
       # AQoCggEBALqpRjOpeHKFr4RuEo86/Pw7LZlkQVBeBI5UrcLSMjPttLlFz02dD3
       # hNA2EnlMCPmMbh0kwCmsNsJ0+nbKyZJwbRmqpcnTJjndjxGY+ZnVkXPpd4/S0o
       # dvJi72LsUOlK4JVRI+wPTU0qqvBOgwYcTtTPEesyR/3ZJpA9sLPAQHUscr9sGH
       # 3DE0j0Qh2ub4pr6mR63497EwSLZYK5Q7xBAiYo0jfaOG3Ni7eqKfgvLyJe+bPD
       # YMa4uuKhSYedIy+ubDnxg1wNZ8lgGF9IECAwEAAaOCAc8wggHLMB0GA1UdDgQW
       # BBRnoJw+H6YIvyRpO1RYBQHSMEGDAWgBQjJt5c6tuTlhHJHwJ9tWP8zFud4TAY
       # BgNVHSABAf8EDjAMMAoGCCA1UdHwRJMEcwRaBDoEGGP3JzeW5jOi8vY2EwLnJw
       # a2kubmV0L3Jwa2kvUkduZXNVlSeVI4Q2ZiVmpfTXhibmVFLmNybDBbBggrBgEF
       # BQcBAQRPME0wSwYIKwYBBQOi8vY2EwLnJwa2kubmV0L3Jwa2kvYWx0Q0EvSXli
       # ZVhPcmJrNVlSeVI4Q2ZiVmcjAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCB4AwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEL
       # BIGBMH8wSwYIKwYBBQUHMAY2EwLnJwa2kubmV0L3Jwa2kvUkduZXQvWjZDY1Bo
       # LW1DTDhrYVR0VVdBVU1iY1BggrBgEFBQcwDYYkaHR0cHM6Ly9jYTAucnBraS5u
       # ZXQvcnJkcC9ub3RpZnkueGBwEHAQH/BBAwDjAMBAIAATAGAwQARaYLMA0GCSqG
       # SIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQC+Cx9LN8dxjFFcohfRBRMnraXZjKhAaccKZ1vOPaG7iU
       # lz6q1k37fOFuTSn7/eX/j9UZBMwQOQGZF87bGT3+Sh7qQCV0WOqB/V+Jknqrzk
       # n9mL+ZwPw7fgVw4I8xBD7mVQoZhTPiGDlEUhhM7dP0moBNV8YdfLrB5fV1byWJ
       # sE+LKDo3I+fJEt7imDoOgbqKWSS+1bpTTB5+V1Qc1rcKyZK7rp8tmsEQCxe2JM
       # EWPML3doO16M8ctjGUCXxT8dRhSO47Z9e1drPCsd+rMYIBqjCCAaYCAQOAFGeg
       # nD4fpgi/JGk7VFgFDG3ENNAwQCAaBrMBoGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzENBgsqhkiG9w0B
       # CRABGDAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMTg0NjE0WjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgfEXq+Mbk
       # 85Ro9ZcGTfrGLPRIpiqRIzDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAIa8unm8JGfiiTHXY
       # HIlNNmZ8zIpR+AkWqZIpdRMgBzWxHyBVsMlO1zce441FCJBgEr+TR36/uGvNes
       # tV/35qkeykYxvBPhylSrwnKt6HHzfcE9wT6BIpiQPGlUdMGgguUisG+hSaoZPG
       # w+nU1q1VSZDvw/YVpyaWAu99SjHTxpIBdwp3avpZ84Daxy4h4v084xFvjnqAAg
       # ukYLIfBPdZiuvtLaLR/vjZR4s7mR4L4SNj0WSNPYKwad9cs+ozQpymByDL8VW8
       # pUXCTD5sPYzBKsTpAbiDsQ==
       # END Signature: 192.0.2.0/24

5.  Operational Considerations

   Geofeed data SHOULD be fetched using https [RFC2818].

   When using data from a geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside of
   the inet-num: object's prefix range.

   If no data in a geofeed file are signed per Section 4, then multiple
   inet-num:s MAY refer to the same geofeed file, and the consumer MUST

Candela, et al.           Expires March 4, 2021                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              Finding Geofeeds                 August 2020

   use only those covered by the prefix in the inet-num: they have
   followed.

   An entity fetching geofeed data through these mechanisms MUST NOT do
   frequent real-time look-ups to prevent load on RPSL servers.  And do
   not fetch at midnight, because everyone else may.

6.  Scurity Considerations

   It would be generally prudent for a consumer of geofeed data to also
   use other sources to cross-validate the data.  All of the Security
   Considerations of [RFC8805] apply here as well.

   As mentioned in Section 4, many RPSL repositories have weak if any
   authentication.  This would allow spoofing of inet-num: objects
   pointing to malicious geofeed files.  Section 4 suggests an overly
   complex method for stronger authentication based on the RPKI.

7.  IANA Considerations

   No action is requested of the IANA.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Rob Austein and Russ Housley for CMS and detached signature
   clue.  Also to Erik Kline who was too shy to agree to co-authorship.

9.  Normative References

   [INETNUM]  RIPE, "Description of the INETNUM Object",
              <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
              asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
              rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
              objects/4-2-4-description-of-the-inetnum-object>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2622]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
              Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2622, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2622>.

Candela, et al.           Expires March 4, 2021                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              Finding Geofeeds                 August 2020

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC3852]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
              RFC 3852, DOI 10.17487/RFC3852, July 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3852>.

   [RFC5485]  Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft
              Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8805]  Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W.
              Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation
              Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8805>.

Authors' Addresses

   Massimo Candela
   NTT
   Siriusdreef 70-72
   Hoofddorp  2132 WT
   Netherlands

   Email: massimo@ntt.net

   Randy Bush
   IIJ & Arrcus
   5147 Crystal Springs
   Bainbridge Island, Washington  98110
   United States of America

   Email: randy@psg.com

   Warren Kumari
   Google
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: warren@kumari.net

Candela, et al.           Expires March 4, 2021                 [Page 6]