Network Working Group D. Ma Internet-Draft ZDNS Obsoletes: 8416 (if approved) T. Bruijnzeels Intended status: Standards Track NLnet Labs Expires: 8 January 2024 7 July 2023 Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI (SLURM) draft-maditimbru-rfc8416-bis-01 Abstract The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is a global authorization infrastructure that allows the holder of Internet Number Resources (INRs) to make verifiable statements about those resources. Network operators, e.g., Internet Service Providers (ISPs), can use the RPKI to validate BGP route origin assertions. ISPs can also use the RPKI to validate the path of a BGP route. However, ISPs may want to establish a local view of exceptions to the RPKI data in the form of local filters and additions. The mechanisms described in this document provide a simple way to enable INR holders to establish a local, customized view of the RPKI, overriding global RPKI repository data as 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 8 January 2024. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 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. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. RP with SLURM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. SLURM Files and Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Use of JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. SLURM File Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.3. Validation Output Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3.1. Validated ROA Prefix Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3.2. BGPsec Assertion Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3.3. ASPA Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Locally Added Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4.1. ROA Prefix Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4.2. BGPsec Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.3. ASPA Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.5. Example of a SLURM File with Filters and Assertions . . . 14 5. SLURM File Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. SLURM File Atomicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. Multiple SLURM Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Requirements notation 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. Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 2. Introduction The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is a global authorization infrastructure that allows the holder of Internet Number Resources (INRs) to make verifiable statements about those resources. For example, the holder of a block of IP(v4 or v6) addresses can issue a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) [RFC6482] to authorize an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes for that block. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can then use the RPKI to validate BGP routes. (Validation of the origin of a route is described in [RFC6811], BGPSec validation of the path of a route is described in [RFC8205], and ASPA based verification of the path is decsribed in [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]. However, an RPKI Relying Party (RP) may want to override some of the information expressed via configured Trust Anchors (TAs) and the certificates downloaded from the RPKI repository system. For instance, [RFC6491] recommends the creation of ROAs that would invalidate public routes for reserved and unallocated address space, yet some ISPs might like to use BGP and the RPKI with private address space (see [RFC1918], [RFC4193], and [RFC6598]) or private AS numbers (see [RFC1930] and [RFC6996]). Local use of private address space and/or AS numbers is consistent with the RFCs cited above, but such use cannot be verified by the global RPKI. This motivates creation of mechanisms that enable a network operator to publish, at its discretion, an exception to the RPKI in the form of filters and additions (for its own use and that of its customers). Additionally, a network operator might wish to make use of a local override capability to protect routes from adverse actions [RFC8211], until the results of such actions have been addressed. The mechanisms developed to provide this capability to network operators are hereby called "Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI (SLURM)". 3. RP with SLURM SLURM provides a simple way to enable an RP to establish a local, customized view of the RPKI, overriding RPKI repository data if needed. To that end, an RP with SLURM can filter out (i.e., removes from consideration for routing decisions) ROA Prefix, ASPA and BGPSec assertions in the RPKI, and can add local assertions instead or in addition to the ones found in the RPKI. In general, the primary output of an RP is the data it sends to routers over the RPKI-Router protocol [RFC8210]. The RPKI-Router protocol enables routers to query an RP for all assertions it knows about (Reset Query) or for an update of only the changes in assertions (Serial Query). The mechanisms specified in this document Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 are to be applied to the result set for a Reset Query and to both the old and new sets that are compared for a Serial Query. RP software may modify other forms of output in comparable ways, but that is outside the scope of this document. +--------------+ +---------------------------+ +------------+ | | | | | | | Repositories +--->Local cache of RPKI objects+---> Validation | | | | | | | +--------------+ +---------------------------+ +-----+------+ | +-------------------------------------------------+ | +------v-------+ +------------+ +-----------+ +-------------+ | | | | | | | | | SLURM +---> SLURM +--->RPKI-Router+---> BGP Speakers| | Filters | | Assertions | | Protocol | | | +--------------+ +------------+ +-----------+ +-------------+ Figure 1: SLURM's Position in the RP Stack 4. SLURM Files and Mechanisms 4.1. Use of JSON SLURM filters and assertions are specified in JSON format [RFC8259]. JSON members that are not defined here MUST NOT be used in SLURM files. An RP MUST consider any deviations from the specifications to be errors. Future additions to the specifications in this document MUST use an incremented value for the "slurmVersion" member. 4.2. SLURM File Overview A SLURM file consists of a single JSON object containing following members: * A "slurmVersion" member that MUST be set to 2, encoded as a number * A "validationOutputFilters" member (Section 4.3), whose value is an object. The object MUST contain exactly three members: - A "prefixFilters" member, whose value is described in Section 4.3.1. - A "bgpsecFilters" member, whose value is described in Section 4.3.2. Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 - A "aspaFilters" member, whose value is described in Section 4.3.3. * A "locallyAddedAssertions" member (Section 3.4), whose value is an object. The object MUST contain exactly three members: - A "prefixAssertions" member, whose value is described in Section 4.4.1. - A "bgpsecAssertions" member, whose value is described in Section 4.4.2. - A "aspaAssertions" member, whose value is described in Section 4.4.3. In the envisioned typical use case, an RP uses both Validation Output Filters and Locally Added Assertions. In this case, the resulting assertions MUST be the same as if output filtering were performed before locally adding assertions; that is, Locally Added Assertions MUST NOT be removed by output filtering. The following JSON structure with JSON members represents a SLURM file that has no filters or assertions: { "slurmVersion": 2, "validationOutputFilters": { "prefixFilters": [], "bgpsecFilters": [], "aspaFilters": [] }, "locallyAddedAssertions": { "prefixAssertions": [], "bgpsecAssertions": [], "aspaAssertions": [] } } Figure 2: Empty SLURM File 4.3. Validation Output Filters Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 4.3.1. Validated ROA Prefix Filters The RP can configure zero or more Validated ROA Prefix Filters ("Prefix Filters" for short). Each Prefix Filter can contain either an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix and/or an ASN. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is included with each Prefix Filter so that it can be shown to users of the RP software. The above is expressed as a value of the "prefixFilters" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain either 1) one of the following members or 2) one of each of the following members. * A "prefix" member, whose value is a string representing either an IPv4 prefix [RFC4632] or an IPv6 prefix ([RFC5952]). * An "asn" member, whose value is a number. In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, whose value is a string. The following example JSON structure represents a "prefixFilters" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above: "prefixFilters": [ { "prefix": "192.0.2.0/24", "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix" }, { "asn": 64496, "comment": "All VRPs matching ASN" }, { "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24", "asn": 64497, "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix, matching ASN" } ] Figure 3: "prefixFilters" Examples Any Validated ROA Payload (VRP) [RFC6811] that matches any configured Prefix Filter MUST be removed from the RP's output. A VRP is considered to match with a Prefix Filter if one of the following cases applies: Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 1. If the Prefix Filter only contains an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix, the VRP is considered to match the filter if the VRP prefix is equal to or covered by the Prefix Filter prefix. 2. If the Prefix Filter only contains an ASN, the VRP is considered to match the filter if the VRP ASN matches the Prefix Filter ASN. 3. If the Prefix Filter contains both an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix and an ASN, the VRP is considered to match if the VRP prefix is equal to or covered by the Prefix Filter prefix and the VRP ASN matches the Prefix Filter ASN. 4.3.2. BGPsec Assertion Filters The RP can configure zero or more BGPsec Assertion Filters ("BGPsec Filters" for short). Each BGPsec Filter can contain an ASN and/or the Base64 [RFC4648] encoding of a Router Subject Key Identifier (SKI), as described in [RFC8209] and [RFC6487]. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included with each BGPsec Filter, so that it can be shown to users of the RP software. The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecFilters" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one of either, or one each of both following members: * An "asn" member, whose value is a number * An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key Identifier as described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487]. (This is the value of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.) In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, whose value is a string. The following example JSON structure represents a "bgpsecFilters" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above: Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 "bgpsecFilters": [ { "asn": 64496, "comment": "All keys for ASN" }, { "SKI": "", "comment": "Key matching Router SKI" }, { "asn": 64497, "SKI": "", "comment": "Key for ASN 64497 matching Router SKI" } ] Figure 4: "bgpsecFilters" Examples Any BGPsec Assertion that matches any configured BGPsec Filter MUST be removed from the RP's output. A BGPsec Assertion is considered to match with a BGPsec Filter if one of the following cases applies: 1. If the BGPsec Filter only contains an ASN, a BGPsec Assertion is considered to match if the Assertion ASN matches the Filter ASN. 2. If the BGPsec Filter only contains an SKI, a BGPsec Assertion is considered to match if the Assertion Router SKI matches the Filter SKI. 3. If the BGPsec Filter contains both an ASN and a Router SKI, then a BGPsec Assertion is considered to match if both the Assertion ASN matches the Filter ASN and the Assertion Router SKI matches the Filter SKI. 4.3.3. ASPA Filters The RP can configure zero or more ASPA Filters. Each ASPA Filter can contain a customer ASN and/or a list of providers ASNs. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is included with each ASPA Filter so that it can be shown to users of the RP software. The above is expressed as a value of the "aspaFilters" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain at least one of the following members: * A "customerAsid" member, whose value is a number representing an ASPA Customer Autonomous System as described in section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile]. Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 * A "providers" member, whose value is an array of 1 or more numbers representing ASPA provider ASes as described in section 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile]. In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, whose value is a string. The following example JSON structure represents a "aspaFilters" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above: { "aspaFilters": [ { "customerAsid": 64496, "comment": "Filter out all VAPs that have 64496 as Customer ASID" }, { "customerAsid": 64497, "providers": [ 64498, 64499], "comment": "Filter some providers with 64497 as Customer ASID" }, { "providers": [ 65003 ], "comment": "Never accept 65003 as a valid provider." } ] } Figure 5: "aspaFilters" Examples 4.3.3.1. ASPA Unions and Filters Before applying any ASPA filter an RP MUST first obtain a set of validated ASPA objects, extract the Validated ASPA Payload (VAP) for each object, and then make unions of all VAPs pertaining to the same customer ASN. A unified VAP for a customer ASN will contain the union of all provider ASes that are contained in any of the source VAPs. Example using human readable ASPA notation [I-D.timbru-sidrops-aspa-notation]: Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 9] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 Given VAPs from ASPA Objects: AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65000 => AS65002, AS65003, AS65004 Unified VAP: AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004 Figure 6: VAP Customer Only Filter Example 4.3.3.1.1. Customer AS Only Filter If an ASPA filter specifies a "customerAsid" only, then the unified VAP matching the Customer Autonomous System MUST be removed entirely. Example using human readable ASPA notation: Given VAP: AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002 Filter: "customerAsid": AS65000 Result: VAP is removed completely Figure 7: VAP Customer Only Filter Example 4.3.3.1.2. Providers Only Filter If an ASPA filter specifies a "providers" array only, then matching provider AS statements MUST be removed from any unified VAP, i.e. regardless of the "customerAsid" used. Example using human readable ASPA notation: Given VAPs: AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004 AS65005 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004 Filter: "providers": [ 65001, 65002, 65003] Result: AS65000 => AS65001, AS65004 AS65005 => AS65001, AS65004 Figure 8: VAP Provider Only Filter Example Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 10] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 4.3.3.1.3. Customer AS and Providers Filter If a filter specifies both "customerAsid" and "providers", then the provider filter is applied only to the unified VAP that matches the Customer Autonomous System. Example using human readable ASPA notation: Given VAPs: AS65000 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004 AS65005 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004 Filter: "customerAsid": 65000, "providers": [ 65002, 65003, 65004 ] Result: AS65000 => AS65001 AS65005 => AS65001, AS65002, AS65003, AS65004 Figure 9: VAP Customer and Provider Filter Example 4.3.3.1.4. ASPA Filter Considerations It should be noted that while this standard allows for fine-grained ASPA filters to be specified, no specific way to filter is recommended here. In other words, this document aims to give operators set logic oriented tools to manipulate the VAPs that would be communicated to their routers, but it does not make any assumptions about use cases and best practices. This design choice is based on the conviction that not all possible use cases can be known at this time, and that more deployment experience is needed before best practices can be formulated. It is however encouraged that this discussion takes place, and that, if needed, a follow-up document that describes use cases and best practices is made in future. 4.4. Locally Added Assertions 4.4.1. ROA Prefix Assertions Each RP is locally configured with a (possibly empty) array of ROA Prefix Assertions ("Prefix Assertions" for short). Each ROA Prefix Assertion MUST contain an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix and an ASN. It MAY include a value for the maximum length. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included with each so that it can be shown to users of the RP software. Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 11] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 The above is expressed as a value of the "prefixAssertions" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one of each of the following members: * A "prefix" member, whose value is a string representing either an IPv4 prefix (see Section 3.1 of [RFC4632]) or an IPv6 prefix (see [RFC5952]). * An "asn" member, whose value is a number. In addition, each object MAY contain one of each of the following members: * A "maxPrefixLength" member, whose value is a number. * A "comment" member, whose value is a string. The following example JSON structure represents a "prefixAssertions" member with an array of example objects for each use case listed above: "prefixAssertions": [ { "asn": 64496, "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24", "comment": "My other important route" }, { "asn": 64496, "prefix": "2001:DB8::/32", "maxPrefixLength": 48, "comment": "My other important de-aggregated routes" } ] Figure 10: "prefixAssertions" Examples Note that the combination of the prefix, ASN, and optional maximum length describes a VRP as described in [RFC6811]. The RP MUST add all Prefix Assertions found this way to the VRP found through RPKI validation and ensure that it sends the complete set of Protocol Data Units (PDUs), excluding duplicates when using the RPKI-Router protocol (see Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of [RFC8210]). Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 12] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 4.4.2. BGPsec Assertions Each RP is locally configured with a (possibly empty) array of BGPsec Assertions. Each BGPsec Assertion MUST contain an AS number, a Router SKI, and the router public key. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included so that it can be shown to users of the RP software. The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecAssertions" member, as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one each of all of the following members: * An "asn" member, whose value is a number. * An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key Identifier as described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487] (This is the value of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.) * A "routerPublicKey" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without trailing '=' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the equivalent to the subjectPublicKeyInfo value of the router certificate's public key, as described in [RFC8208]. This is the full ASN.1 DER encoding of the subjectPublicKeyInfo, including the ASN.1 tag and length values of the subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE. * An optional "comment" member, whose value is a string. The following example JSON structure represents a "bgpsecAssertions" member with one object as described above: "bgpsecAssertions": [ { "asn": 64496, "SKI": "", "routerPublicKey": "", "comment": "My known key for my important ASN" } ] Figure 11: "bgpsecAssertions" Examples Note that a "bgpsecAssertions" member matches the syntax of the Router Key PDU described in Section 5.10 of [RFC8210]. Relying Parties MUST add any "bgpsecAssertions" member thus found to the set of Router Key PDUs, excluding duplicates, when using the RPKI-Router protocol [RFC8210]. Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 13] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 4.4.3. ASPA Assertions Each RP is locally configured with a (possibly empty) array of ASPA assertions. It is RECOMMENDED that an explanatory comment is also included so that it can be shown to users of the RP software. The above is expressed as a value of the "aspaAssertions" member, as an array of zero or more objects. The object structure is similar to the ASPA filter structure, except that in this case both a "customerAsid" member and a "providers" member containing at at least one provider ASN MUST be specified. "aspaAssertions": [ { "customerAsid": 64496, "providers": [ 64498, 64499, 64500 ], "comment": "Authorize additional providers for customer AS 64496" } ] Figure 12: "aspaAssertions" Example Assertions are applied after the RP obtained unified VAPs and applied any configured filters. If there is an existing unified and potentially partially filtered VAP for the assertion customer ASN, then the additional authorizations are merged into this in the same way as VAPs are merged (see section 4.3.3.1). Note that the presence of an ASPA assertion does not imply any filtering. If the intent is to replace all existing authorized providers then an ASPA filter for the customer ASN only (i.e. without listing providers) should be used in addition as this would ensure that the original unified VAP is removed before the assertion is applied. 4.5. Example of a SLURM File with Filters and Assertions The following JSON structure represents an example of a SLURM file that uses all the elements described in the previous sections: { "slurmVersion": 2, "validationOutputFilters": { "prefixFilters": [ { "prefix": "192.0.2.0/24", "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix" }, Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 14] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 { "asn": 64496, "comment": "All VRPs matching ASN" }, { "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24", "asn": 64497, "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix, matching ASN" } ], "bgpsecFilters": [ { "asn": 64496, "comment": "All keys for ASN" }, { "SKI": "Zm9v", "comment": "Key matching Router SKI" }, { "asn": 64497, "SKI": "YmFy", "comment": "Key for ASN 64497 matching Router SKI" } ], "aspaFilters": [ { "customerAsid": 64496, "comment": "Filter out all VAPs for customer AS 64496" }, { "customerAsid": 64497, "providers": [ 64498, 64499, 64500 ], "comment": "Filter some providers for customer AS 64497" }, { "providers": [ 65001 ], "comment": "Never accept 65001 as a valid provider." } ] }, "locallyAddedAssertions": { "prefixAssertions": [ { "asn": 64496, "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24", "comment": "My other important route" }, Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 15] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 { "asn": 64496, "prefix": "2001:DB8::/32", "maxPrefixLength": 48, "comment": "My other important de-aggregated routes" } ], "bgpsecAssertions": [ { "asn": 64496, "comment" : "My known key for my important ASN", "SKI": "", "routerPublicKey": "" } ], "aspaAssertions": [ { "customerAsid": 64496, "providers": [ 64498, 64499, 64500 ], "comment": "Authorize additional providers for AS 64496" } ] } } Figure 13: Example of Full SLURM File 5. SLURM File Configuration 5.1. SLURM File Atomicity To ensure local consistency, the effect of SLURM MUST be atomic. That is, the output of the RP either MUST be the same as if a SLURM file were not used or MUST reflect the entire SLURM configuration. For an example of why this is required, consider the case of two local routes for the same prefix but different origin ASNs. Both routes are configured with Locally Added Assertions. If neither addition occurs, then both routes could be in the NotFound state [RFC6811]. If both additions occur, then both routes would be in the Valid state. However, if one addition occurs and the other does not, then one could be Invalid while the other is Valid. Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 16] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 5.2. Multiple SLURM Files An implementation MAY support the concurrent use of multiple SLURM files. In this case, the resulting inputs to Validation Output Filters and Locally Added Assertions are the respective unions of the inputs from each file. The envisioned typical use case for multiple files is when the files have distinct scopes. For instance, operators of two distinct networks may resort to one RP system to frame routing decisions. As such, they probably deliver SLURM files to this RP independently. Before an RP configures SLURM files from different sources, it MUST make sure there is no internal conflict among the INR assertions in these SLURM files. To do so, the RP SHOULD check the entries of each SLURM file with regard to overlaps of the INR assertions and report errors to the sources that created the SLURM files in question. The RP gets multiple SLURM files as a set, and the whole set MUST be rejected in case of any overlaps among the SLURM files. If a problem is detected with the INR assertions in these SLURM files, the RP MUST NOT use them and SHOULD issue a warning as error report in the following cases: 1. There may be conflicting changes to ROA Prefix Assertions if an IP address X and distinct SLURM files Y and Z exist such that X is contained by any prefix in any "prefixAssertions" or "prefixFilters" in file Y and X is contained by any prefix in any "prefixAssertions" or "prefixFilters" in file Z. 2. There may be conflicting changes to BGPsec Assertions if an ASN X and distinct SLURM files Y and Z exist such that X is used in any "bgpsecAssertions" or "bgpsecFilters" in file Y and X is used in any "bgpsecAssertions" or "bgpsecFilters" in file Z. 6. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 7. Security Considerations The mechanisms described in this document provide a network operator with additional ways to control use of RPKI data while preserving autonomy in address space and ASN management. These mechanisms are only applied locally; they do not influence how other network operators interpret RPKI data. Nonetheless, care should be taken in how these mechanisms are employed. Note that it also is possible to use SLURM to (locally) manipulate assertions about non-private INRs, e.g., allocated address space that is globally routed. For example, a SLURM file may be used to override RPKI data that a network Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 17] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 operator believes has been corrupted by an adverse action. Network operators who elect to use SLURM in this fashion should use extreme caution. The goal of the mechanisms described in this document is to enable an RP to create its own view of the RPKI, which is intrinsically a security function. An RP using a SLURM file is trusting the assertions made in that file. Errors in the SLURM file used by an RP can undermine the security offered to that RP by the RPKI. A SLURM file could declare as invalid ROAs that would otherwise be valid, and vice versa. As a result, an RP MUST carefully consider the security implications of the SLURM file being used, especially if the file is provided by a third party. Additionally, each RP using SLURM MUST ensure the authenticity and integrity of any SLURM file that it uses. Initially, the SLURM file may be preconfigured out of band, but if the RP updates its SLURM file over the network, it MUST verify the authenticity and integrity of the updated SLURM file. The mechanism to update the SLURM file to guarantee authenticity and integrity is out of the scope of this document. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank David Mandelberg for co-authoring [RFC8416] which this document replaces. The authors would also like to thank Stephen Kent, Richard Hansen, Hui Zou and Chunlin An for their contributions to [RFC8416]. 9. Normative References [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile] Azimov, A., Uskov, E., Bush, R., Snijders, J., Housley, R., and B. Maddison, "A Profile for Autonomous System Provider Authorization", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15, 8 June 2023, . [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification] Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., Snijders, J., and K. Sriram, "BGP AS_PATH Verification Based on Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA) Objects", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa- verification-14, 19 April 2023, . Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 18] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 [I-D.timbru-sidrops-aspa-notation] Bruijnzeels, T., Borchert, O., Ma, D., and T. de Kock, "Human Readable ASPA Notation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-timbru-sidrops-aspa-notation-01, 6 July 2023, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August 2006, . [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006, . [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010, . [RFC6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, DOI 10.17487/RFC6487, February 2012, . [RFC6811] Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8205] Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September 2017, . [RFC8208] Turner, S. and O. Borchert, "BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, and Signature Formats", RFC 8208, DOI 10.17487/RFC8208, September 2017, . Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 19] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 [RFC8209] Reynolds, M., Turner, S., and S. Kent, "A Profile for BGPsec Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests", RFC 8209, DOI 10.17487/RFC8209, September 2017, . [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, . [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, . [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, . 10. Informative References [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, . [RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)", BCP 6, RFC 1930, DOI 10.17487/RFC1930, March 1996, . [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005, . [RFC6482] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012, . [RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA", RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012, . Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 20] Internet-Draft SLURM v2 July 2023 [RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, DOI 10.17487/RFC6598, April 2012, . [RFC6996] Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, DOI 10.17487/RFC6996, July 2013, . [RFC8211] Kent, S. and D. Ma, "Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", RFC 8211, DOI 10.17487/RFC8211, September 2017, . Authors' Addresses Di Ma ZDNS Email: madi@zdns.cn Tim Bruijnzeels NLnet Labs Email: tim@nlnetlabs.nl URI: https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ Ma & Bruijnzeels Expires 8 January 2024 [Page 21]