Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points
draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points
Network Working Group R. Gagliano
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: RFC 6490 (if approved) T. Manderson
Intended status: Standards Track ICANN
Expires: August 18, 2014 C. Martinez Cagnazzo
LACNIC
February 14, 2014
Multiple Repository Publication Points support in the Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points-01
Abstract
The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) depends on Relying
Parties (RP) ability to access its Trust Anchors' certificate
specified in the different "Trust Anchor Locator (TAL)" files and the
Repository Objects located at the Certificate Authorities (CA)
repositories hosted in its respective publication point. This
document updates [RFC6490] by allowing multiple URI associated to a
single public key in a TAL file and introduces the concept of
multiple repository publication point operators for every CA in the
RPKI. This document provides also recommendation for the RP behavior
when analyzing signed objects that include multiple publications
points.
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 August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
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. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Multiple Operators support in TAL files . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Update to RFC 6490 Section 2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Rules for Relying Parties (RP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Multiple Operators support in Certificates . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Rules for Relying Parties (RP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
1. Requirements notation
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 [RFC2119].
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
2. Introduction
The RPKI repository system described in [RFC6481] requires
scalability and diversity in order to address challenges such as
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, to secure the
availability of the system when performing maintenance activities and
against possible security incidents in one particular implementation.
Additionally, when a single operator manages a RPKI Repository
Publication Point, it is more probable to introduce circular
dependencies when the Route Origin Authorization (ROA) signed objects
for the Repository Publication Point IP addresses are hosted in
servers that uses those same addresses.
The current toolset for a CA to diversify its repository system is
limited for both TA distribution and CA publication point management.
In the case of trust anchors, [RFC6490] requires a unique URI per key
on each TAL file. Conversely, in the case of the different
publication points and although supported by [RFC6487] , there is no
current guidance on how RPs should support multiple publication
points for the same object.
When using a single URI, the options for diversity and scalability
are reduced to:
1. Give the content to a Content Delivery Network (CDN) to have the
content distributed (as long as the CDN supports the CA's access
method , which is not currently the case for rsync). The
implementation will typically require the configuration of a
CNAME resource record in the authoritative server pointing to a
server farm inside the CDN who will handle load-balancing by
using a set of internally defined metrics. If, for the sake of
diversity, a CA administrator would like to use two different
CDNs for the same URI it will need to modify the authoritative
name server behavior to break RFC1034 standard behavior and allow
multiple CNAME records for the same alias. This modification is
not available by default on most of the more widely deployed DNS
servers.
2. Copy the content to different Repository Publication Points
around the globe (i.e. using [I-D.ietf-sidr-publication]) and
load balance the content using different Domain Name System (DNS)
techniques. The load balancing implementation will need to
verify the availability of the target server before providing a
DNS response to avoid blackholes caused by unavailable servers or
clusters. This "feature" needs also be added to the
authoritative name server or the full DNS resolution or
outsourced to a third party (which would introduce another non-
diversified element).
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
This document addresses this problem by enabling multiple operators
for trust anchor material, and, while not making it mandatory,
recommends the use of multiple publication points in signed objects.
The main idea is that the a CA will host its RPKI signed objects in
different locations, using diverse routing paths and diverse DNS
resolution. The RP will have more processing to perform to fetch the
different objects when dealing with exceptions.
The first thing that is needed is to add multiple URIs support for
each Trust Anchor. [RFC6490] requires that each TAL file includes a
unique URI. This document removes this requirement by allowing one
or more URI for each public key in a TAL file. In steady state, an
RP should receive the same material from each of the different URI
for the same root certificate. An exception could happen when the
certificate is been updated or rolled-over, a process which should
not have operational consequences.
For the root certificate trust anchor, this proposal has an
additional consequence: it would create the idea of root-CA
repository operators. This concept has worked well in the case of
DNS, where one organization is responsible for creating the root zone
material and a number of different organizations are responsible in
running the root servers.
A CA can add support for multiple Repository Publication Points
operators by adding more than one respective object for the Authority
Information Access (AIA), the Subject Information Access (SIA) and
the CRL Distribution Points (CRLDP) and which is supported by
[RFC5280] and [RFC6487] . This document provides guidance on the RP
expected behavior when analyzing signed objects with multiple
Repository Publication Points in Section 4.
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
3. Multiple Operators support in TAL files
The idea of multiples operators support for a TA certificate
expressed on its TAL file is similar to the support for several Root
Server operators in a DNS hints file.
An example of such a TAL file with 3 operators would be:
rsync://rpki.operator1.org/rpki/hedgehog/root.cer
rsync://rpki.operator2.net/rpki/hedgehog/root.cer
rsync://rpki.operator3.biz/rpki/hedgehog/root.cer
MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAovWQL2lh6knDx
GUG5hbtCXvvh4AOzjhDkSHlj22gn/1oiM9IeDATIwP44vhQ6L/xvuk7W6
Kfa5ygmqQ+xOZOwTWPcrUbqaQyPNxokuivzyvqVZVDecOEqs78q58mSp9
nbtxmLRW7B67SJCBSzfa5XpVyXYEgYAjkk3fpmefU+AcxtxvvHB5OVPIa
BfPcs80ICMgHQX+fphvute9XLxjfJKJWkhZqZ0v7pZm2uhkcPx1PMGcrG
ee0WSDC3fr3erLueagpiLsFjwwpX6F+Ms8vqz45H+DKmYKvPSstZjCCq9
aJ0qANT9OtnfSDOS+aLRPjZryCNyvvBHxZXqj5YCGKtwIDAQAB
As we can see in this example, a RP would have different URI where to
fetch the self-signed certificate for the trust anchor. In each
location, the same result should be expected as all the URI share the
same public key.
In order to increase diversity, It is RECOMMENDED that the different
FQDN could be resolved to IP addresses included in ROA objects from
different CAs and hosted in diverse repository publication points.
3.1. Update to RFC 6490 Section 2.1
The following text will replace the last paragraph on Section 2.1 of
RFC 6490:
The TAL is an ordered sequence of:
1) One or more rsync URI [RFC5781],
2) A <CRLF> or <LF> line break after each URI,
3) A line containing a single <CRLF> or <LF> line break, and
4) A subjectPublicKeyInfo [RFC5280] in DER format [X.509], encoded in
Base64 (see Section 4 of [RFC4648]).A
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
3.2. Rules for Relying Parties (RP)
A RP can use different rules to select the URI from where fetch the
Trust Anchor certificate. Some examples are:
o Using the order provided in the TAL file
o Selecting the URI randomly from the available list
o Creating a prioritized list of URIs based on RP specific
parameters such as connection establishment delay
If the connection to the preferred URI fails or the fetched
certificate public key does not match the TAL public key, the RP
SHOULD fetch the TA certificate from the next URI of preference.
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
4. Multiple Operators support in Certificates
The support for multiple operators in the RPKI Certificate Authority
(CA) and End Entity (EE) certificates is supported as the RFC 5082
allows multiple repository publication point operators as the SIA,
AIA and CRLDP are implemented as sequences. Consequently, no changes
are needed on the existing RPKI standard and this section could be
considered informative.
In the case of the SIA extension, for each operator, the
accessMethods for both the CA repository publication point and for
the correspondent manifest needs to be added.
4.1. Rules for Relying Parties (RP)
A RP can use different rules to select the URI to fetch the different
repository objects and when performing the validation.
When a RP needs to fetch one or more object from a list of possible
URIs, it can chose the URI by adopting a locally defined rule that
could be:
o Using the order provided in the correspondent certificate
o Selecting the URI randomly from the available list
o Creating a prioritized list of URIs based on RP specific
parameters such as connection establishment delay
If the connection to the preferred URI fails , the RP SHOULD fetch
the repository objects from the next URI of preference.
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
5. IANA Considerations
No IANA requirements
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
6. Security Considerations
TBA
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
7. Acknowledgements
TBA.
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
8. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-publication]
"A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI)", <http://www.ietf.org/id/
draft-ietf-sidr-publication-02.txt>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
[RFC6481] Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
February 2012.
[RFC6484] Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K., and R. Watro, "Certificate
Policy (CP) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", BCP 173, RFC 6484, February 2012.
[RFC6485] Huston, G., "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for
Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)",
RFC 6485, February 2012.
[RFC6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487,
February 2012.
[RFC6490] Huston, G., Weiler, S., Michaelson, G., and S. Kent,
"Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor
Locator", RFC 6490, February 2012.
[RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A
Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates",
RFC 6492, February 2012.
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RPKI Multiple Operators February 2014
Authors' Addresses
Roque Gagliano
Cisco Systems
Avenue des Uttins 5
Rolle, 1180
Switzerland
Email: rogaglia@cisco.com
Terry Manderson
ICANN
Email: terry.manderson@icann.org
Carlos Martinez Cagnazzo
LACNIC
Email: carlos@lacnic.net
Gagliano, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
