Internet DRAFT - draft-geng-sidrops-rtr-selective-sync
draft-geng-sidrops-rtr-selective-sync
sidrops N. Geng
Internet-Draft S. Zhuang
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 4 September 2024 M. Huang
Individual
3 March 2024
Selective Synchronization for RPKI to Router Protocol
draft-geng-sidrops-rtr-selective-sync-02
Abstract
The RPKI-to-Router (RTR) protocol synchronizes all the verified RPKI
data to routers. This document proposes to extend the existing RTR
protocol to support selective data synchronization. Selective
synchronization can avoid some unnecessary synchronizations. The
router can obtain only the data that it really needs, and it does not
need to save the data that are not needed.
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 4 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR 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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Preliminary Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Subscribing Data PDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. PDUs with Data Type Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. End of Specific Data PDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The RPKI-to-Router (RTR) protocol is a simple but reliable approach,
which help synchronize the validated RPKI data from a trusted cache
to routers. There are already several versions of the protocol
[RFC6810][RFC8210][I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis]. The supported types of
data that can be transferred increase, which is shown in Table 1.
+=============+=============+=============+
| Version 0 | Version 1 | Version 2 |
+=============+=============+=============+
| IPv4 Prefix | IPv4 Prefix | IPv4 Prefix |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv6 Prefix | IPv6 Prefix | IPv6 Prefix |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| | Router Key | Router Key |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| | | ASPA |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Table 1: Supported data types in
different versions of the RTR protocol
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
The RTR protocol keeps the synchronization of all types of data, and
selective synchronization is not supported. However, routers may be
interested in a part of data types, instead of all. 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. Since multiple types of data are transmitted
together, the router cannot use any type of these data unless it
waits for all data to complete transmission. Furthermore, there may
be more types of data in the cache, , which makes the above issue
more significant and worse. The followings are example types, and
some of them may be possibly supported in the RTR protocol in the
future:
* Secured Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC7909]
* 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]
This document describes the synchronization problem of the RTR
protocol and provides some possible solutions.
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. Problem Statement
The RTR protocol does not distinguish data types in the cache.
Different types of data share one serial number and one End of Data
PDU. When the Relay Party (RP) synchronizes the cache to the router,
various PDUs, such as IPv4 Prefix, IPv6 Prefix, Router Key, and ASPA,
are mixed. The router cannot select one or more really required PDUs
or deny receiving a certain kind of PDU. For example, if the router
supports RTR v2 but does not support or enable ASPA, the ASPA PDU
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
messages will still be transmitted. Another example is the router in
an IPv6-only network unreasonably has to receive IPv4 RPKI data.
Overall, the transimitted Data PDU type cannot be flexibly selected
by the router.
The negative effects of the above problem are as follows:
* Storing unused data on the router, which is unreasonable.
* Unnecessary transmission and storage overhead.
* Inefficient end-of-transmission acknowledgment. Multiple types of
data are transmitted together. The router cannot use any type of
these data unless it waits for all data to complete transmission.
The above negative effects will become worse when there are more
kinds of RPKI data available [I-D.van-beijnum-sidrops-pathrpki][I-D.i
etf-grow-rpki-as-cones][I-D.spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-asgroup]. The
main problem of the RTR protocol is the lack of selective
synchronization capability.
How about using different RTR versions for controlling the
synchronized data, e.g., using RTR v0 if ASPA data are unwanted?
This is not a good solution. First, the data selection is restricted
to RTR versions and thus is not flexible either. Second, upgrading
the version of RTR for future new RPKI data is not a proper choice,
which is also a problem of existing RTR design. Specifically,
existing RTR protocol has low extension capability. When there are
new PDUs defined for transmission, a new RTR version needs to be
issued. The new version protocol is not well compatible with the
older ones, which induces some challenges on version negotiation,
protocol implementation, and deployment. This document will
primarily focus on the solving the inflexible synchronization
problem. How to define an extensible protocol needs to be further
discussed.
3. Preliminary Solutions
This section preliminarily proposes some independent solutions for
achieving selective synchronization in the RTR protocol, while trying
to keep the protocol's simplicity. A new protocol version may not
necessarily be required.
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
3.1. Subscribing Data PDU
Define a new type of PDU called Subscribing Data PDU. The new PDU
will indicate the data types that the router is interested in. An
example format of the PDU is shown in Figure 1. The field of PDU
type is TBD. The Data Type fields indicate the interested data types
(i.e., 4: IPv4 Prefix, 6: IPv6 Prefix, 9: Router Key, 11: ASPA).
The router can send the Subscribing Data PDU to the cache. After
finishing the subscribing, the following PDUs, including Serial
Notify, Serial Query, Reset Query, Cache Response, and Cache Reset,
are only for the subscribed data. If the router wants to modify the
subscription, a new Subscribing Data PDU can be sent for overwriting
the previous subscription.
0 8 16 24 31
.-------------------------------------------.
| Protocol | PDU | |
| Version | Type | zero |
| | | |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Length |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| Data | | | Data |
| Type 1 | ... | ... | Type N |
| | | | |
`-------------------------------------------'
Figure 1: An example format of Subscribing Data PDU
3.2. PDUs with Data Type Field
The existing PDUs, including Serial Notify, Serial Query, Reset
Query, Cache Response, and Cache Reset, can be extended to carry the
Data Type field. The values of the Data Type field can be 4 for IPv4
Prefix, for IPv6 Prefix, 9 for Router Key, and 11 for ASPA. An
example format of the extended Serial Query PDU is shown in Figure 2.
A router can send the extended Serial Query PDU for requesting a
specific type of data.
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
0 8 16 24 31
.-------------------------------------------.
| Protocol | PDU | |
| Version | Type | Session ID |
| 2 | 1 | |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Length=16 |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Data Type |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Serial Number |
| |
`-------------------------------------------'
Figure 2: An example format of extended Serial Query PDU
3.3. End of Specific Data PDU
End of Data PDU tells the router that all the requested data are
synchronized. The End of Specific Data PDU can be defined for
indicating a specific type of data has been synchronized. An example
format of End of Specific Data PDU is shown in Figure 3. The field
of PDU type is TBD. The Data Type field indicate the interested data
types (i.e., 4: IPv4 Prefix, 6: IPv6 Prefix, 9: Router Key, 11:
ASPA).
The type of data specified in End of Specific Data PDU will become
ready for use. The router does not need to wait for all the data to
complete transmission before it can use the specified data.
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
0 8 16 24 31
.-------------------------------------------.
| Protocol | PDU | |
| Version | Type | Session ID |
| | | |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Length=24 |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Serial Number |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Refresh Interval |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Retry Interval |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Expire Interval |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| Data Type |
| |
`-------------------------------------------'
Figure 3: An example format of End of Specific Data PDU
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. References
6.1. Normative References
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
[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>.
[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>.
[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-
11, 21 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
8210bis-11>.
[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
[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>.
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
[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
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
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Selective Synchronization for RTR March 2024
Nan Geng
Huawei
Beijing
China
Email: gengnan@huawei.com
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei
Beijing
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Mingqing Huang
Individual
Beijing
China
Email: huangmq@vip.sina.com
Geng, et al. Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 10]
