<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.14 (Ruby 3.3.8) -->


<!DOCTYPE rfc  [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">

]>


<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-wirtgen-bgp-tls-04" category="exp" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="bgp-tls">BGP over TLS/TCP</title>

    <author initials="T." surname="Wirtgen" fullname="Thomas Wirtgen">
      <organization>UCLouvain &amp; WELRI</organization>
      <address>
        <email>thomas.wirtgen@uclouvain.be</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="O." surname="Bonaventure" fullname="Olivier Bonaventure">
      <organization>UCLouvain &amp; WELRI</organization>
      <address>
        <email>olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2026" month="March" day="02"/>

    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>IDR</workgroup>
    <keyword>tcp</keyword> <keyword>tls</keyword> <keyword>bgp</keyword> <keyword>tcp-ao</keyword>

    <abstract>


<?line 68?>

<t>This document specifies the use of TLS over TCP to support BGP.</t>



    </abstract>

    <note title="About This Document" removeInRFC="true">
      <t>
        Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wirtgen-bgp-tls/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
        Discussion of this document takes place on the
        IDR Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:idr@ietf.org"/>),
        which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/"/>.
        Subscribe at <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
        <eref target="https://github.com/obonaventure/draft-bgp-tls"/>.</t>
    </note>


  </front>

  <middle>


<?line 72?>

<section anchor="introduction"><name>Introduction</name>

<t>The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) <xref target="RFC4271"/> relies on the TCP protocol
to establish BGP sessions between routers. A recent draft
<xref target="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic"/> has proposed to replace TCP with
the QUIC protocol <xref target="RFC9000"/>. QUIC brings many features compared to
TCP including security, support for multiple streams and datagrams.</t>

<t>From a security viewpoint, an important benefit of QUIC compared to TCP is
that QUIC by design prevents injection attacks that are possible when
TCP is used by BGP <xref target="RFC4272"/>. Several techniques can be used by BGP routers
to counter these attacks <xref target="RFC5082"/> <xref target="RFC5925"/>. TCP-AO <xref target="RFC5925"/>
authenticates the packets exchanged over a BGP session, providing similar
features as QUIC. However, it is notoriously difficult to configure the
keys used to protect BGP sessions.</t>

<t>The widespread deployment of TLS <xref target="RFC8446"/> combined with the possibility of
deriving TCP-AO keys from the TLS handshake <xref target="draft-piraux-tcp-ao-tls"/>
creates an interest in using TLS to secure BGP sessions. This document
describes how BGP can operate over TCP/TLS.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="conventions-and-definitions"><name>Conventions and Definitions</name>

<t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>

<?line -18?>

<t>This document uses network byte order (that is, big endian) values.
Fields are placed starting from the high-order bits of each byte.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="summary-of-operation"><name>Summary of operation</name>

<t>A BGP over TLS/TCP session is established in two phases:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>establish a transport layer connection using TCP</t>
  <t>establish a TLS session over the TCP connection</t>
</list></t>

<t>The TCP connection <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be established on port TBD1.</t>

<t>During the establishment of the TLS session, the router that initiates the
connection <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the "botls" token in the Application Layer Protocol
Negotiation (ALPN) extension <xref target="RFC7301"/>. Other ALPN tokens <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be
included in the TLS handshake.</t>

<t>Once the TLS handshake is complete, the BGP session is
initiated as defined in <xref target="RFC4271"/> and the protocol operates in the
same way as a classic BGP over TCP session. The difference is that the
BGP session is now encrypted and authenticated using the TLS layer.
As in <xref target="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic"/>, the TLS authentication parameters used for this connection
are out of the scope of this draft.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations"><name>Security Considerations</name>

<t>This document improves the security of BGP sessions since the information exchanged over the
session is now protected by using TLS.</t>

<t>If TLS encounters a payload injection attack, it will generate an alert that immediately
closes the TLS session. The BGP router <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> then attempt to reestablish the session.
However, this will cause traffic to be interrupted during the connection re-establishment.</t>

<t>If both BGP peers support TCP-AO, the TLS stack is protected against payload injection and
this attack can be avoided. When enabled, TCP-AO counters the TCP injection
attacks listed in <xref target="RFC5082"/>.</t>

<t>Furthermore, if the BGP router supports TCP-AO, it is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> to use an opportunistic
TCP-AO approach as suggested in <xref target="draft-piraux-tcp-ao-tls"/>. The
router will attempt to connect using TCP-AO with a default key. When the TLS
handshake is finished, the routers will derive a new TCP-AO key using the TLS key.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations"><name>IANA Considerations</name>

<t>IANA is requested to assign a TCP port (TBD1) from the "Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number Registry" as follows:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Service Name: botls</t>
  <t>Port Number: TBD1</t>
  <t>Transport Protocol: TCP</t>
  <t>Description: BGP over TLS/TCP</t>
  <t>Assignee: IETF</t>
  <t>Contact: IDR WG</t>
  <t>Registration Data: TBD</t>
  <t>Reference: this document</t>
  <t>Unauthorized Use Reported: idr@ietf.org</t>
</list></t>

<t>It is suggested to use the same port as the one selected for BGP over QUIC
<xref target="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic"/>.</t>

</section>
<section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments"><name>Acknowledgments</name>

<t>The authors thank Dimitri Safonov for the TCP-AO implementation in Linux.</t>

</section>
<section numbered="false" anchor="change-log"><name>Change log</name>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>


    <references title='Normative References' anchor="sec-normative-references">



<reference anchor="RFC7301">
  <front>
    <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension</title>
    <author fullname="S. Friedl" initials="S." surname="Friedl"/>
    <author fullname="A. Popov" initials="A." surname="Popov"/>
    <author fullname="A. Langley" initials="A." surname="Langley"/>
    <author fullname="E. Stephan" initials="E." surname="Stephan"/>
    <date month="July" year="2014"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for application-layer protocol negotiation within the TLS handshake. For instances in which multiple application protocols are supported on the same TCP or UDP port, this extension allows the application layer to negotiate which protocol will be used within the TLS connection.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7301"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7301"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4271">
  <front>
    <title>A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)</title>
    <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Rekhter"/>
    <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Li"/>
    <author fullname="S. Hares" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Hares"/>
    <date month="January" year="2006"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol.</t>
      <t>The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced.</t>
      <t>BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths.</t>
      <t>This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4271"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4271"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4272">
  <front>
    <title>BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis</title>
    <author fullname="S. Murphy" initials="S." surname="Murphy"/>
    <date month="January" year="2006"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, was originally designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms internal to BGP that protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior.</t>
      <t>This document discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. This document does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4272"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4272"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5925">
  <front>
    <title>The TCP Authentication Option</title>
    <author fullname="J. Touch" initials="J." surname="Touch"/>
    <author fullname="A. Mankin" initials="A." surname="Mankin"/>
    <author fullname="R. Bonica" initials="R." surname="Bonica"/>
    <date month="June" year="2010"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO), which obsoletes the TCP MD5 Signature option of RFC 2385 (TCP MD5). TCP-AO specifies the use of stronger Message Authentication Codes (MACs), protects against replays even for long-lived TCP connections, and provides more details on the association of security with TCP connections than TCP MD5. TCP-AO is compatible with either a static Master Key Tuple (MKT) configuration or an external, out-of-band MKT management mechanism; in either case, TCP-AO also protects connections when using the same MKT across repeated instances of a connection, using traffic keys derived from the MKT, and coordinates MKT changes between endpoints. The result is intended to support current infrastructure uses of TCP MD5, such as to protect long-lived connections (as used, e.g., in BGP and LDP), and to support a larger set of MACs with minimal other system and operational changes. TCP-AO uses a different option identifier than TCP MD5, even though TCP-AO and TCP MD5 are never permitted to be used simultaneously. TCP-AO supports IPv6, and is fully compatible with the proposed requirements for the replacement of TCP MD5. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5925"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5925"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="draft-piraux-tcp-ao-tls" >
  <front>
    <title>Opportunistic TCP-AO with TLS</title>
    <author initials="M." surname="Piraux" fullname="Maxime Piraux">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <author initials="O." surname="Bonaventure" fullname="Olivier Bonaventure">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <author initials="T." surname="Wirtgen" fullname="Thomas Wirtgen">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2023"/>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="Internet draft, draft-bonaventure-tcp-ao-tls, work in progress" value=""/>
</reference>


<reference anchor="RFC2119">
  <front>
    <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
    <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
    <date month="March" year="1997"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8174">
  <front>
    <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
    <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
    <date month="May" year="2017"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
</reference>



    </references>

    <references title='Informative References' anchor="sec-informative-references">




<reference anchor="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic">
   <front>
      <title>BGP over QUIC</title>
      <author fullname="Alvaro Retana" initials="A." surname="Retana">
         <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Yingzhen Qu" initials="Y." surname="Qu">
         <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Jeffrey Haas" initials="J." surname="Haas">
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Shuanglong Chen" initials="S." surname="Chen">
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
         <organization>Nvidia</organization>
      </author>
      <date day="7" month="January" year="2026"/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document specifies the procedures for BGP to use QUIC as a
   transport protocol with a mechanism to carry Network Layer protocols
   (AFI/SAFI) over multiple QUIC streams to achieve high resiliency.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic-08"/>
   
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5082">
  <front>
    <title>The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)</title>
    <author fullname="V. Gill" initials="V." surname="Gill"/>
    <author fullname="J. Heasley" initials="J." surname="Heasley"/>
    <author fullname="D. Meyer" initials="D." surname="Meyer"/>
    <author fullname="P. Savola" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Savola"/>
    <author fullname="C. Pignataro" initials="C." surname="Pignataro"/>
    <date month="October" year="2007"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>The use of a packet's Time to Live (TTL) (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) to verify whether the packet was originated by an adjacent node on a connected link has been used in many recent protocols. This document generalizes this technique. This document obsoletes Experimental RFC 3682. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5082"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5082"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8446">
  <front>
    <title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3</title>
    <author fullname="E. Rescorla" initials="E." surname="Rescorla"/>
    <date month="August" year="2018"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.</t>
      <t>This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8446"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8446"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9000">
  <front>
    <title>QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport</title>
    <author fullname="J. Iyengar" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Iyengar"/>
    <author fullname="M. Thomson" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Thomson"/>
    <date month="May" year="2021"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document defines the core of the QUIC transport protocol. QUIC provides applications with flow-controlled streams for structured communication, low-latency connection establishment, and network path migration. QUIC includes security measures that ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability in a range of deployment circumstances. Accompanying documents describe the integration of TLS for key negotiation, loss detection, and an exemplary congestion control algorithm.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9000"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9000"/>
</reference>



    </references>



  </back>

<!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>

