Re: [Sidrops] Improvements in RPKI ensuring backward compatibility - Would be possible?

[Douglas Fischer <[e-mail]>]

Hello Job!

First of all, thank you for your answer!
I am curious to see how this will be implemented in Bird and OpenBGPD.
(Maybe I'll get willing to adapt something for the FRR.)



I will insist a bit (sorry if I'm pushing too much) on the question of
making these propositions in order to guarantee backward compatibility.


About the ROAs data structure extension
---------------------------------------
As far as I can imagine (this would deserve research) 90% of current ROAs
should not be valid for more than 12 months. Maybe 8% valid for up to 24
months. And I don't know if there are ROAs with validities that are greater
than that.
So it would not be incorrect to say that in the event of an extension of
the ROA data model to include the minimum length, the transition period
could be considered "short".

I haven't researched much about the current ROA data structure yet, but I
imagine that the PKI model includes version markers. Which would mean that
an extra field could be added and considered only from a specific version.
If this is true (I will still study and confirm), would be possible to
define that "if the ROA is of the version with no minimum length, the
minimum length will be considered the same as the prefix." during the
transition.


About the extension of the status of the Route in relation to the RPKI (in
relation to the RTR)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I mentioned in the initial email (from the NLNetLabs list), the idea is
to maintain the Macro statuses already contemplated by the RTR (Valid,
Invalid, Unknown) precisely to maintain backward compatibility.
But add complementary statuses(especially on Invalid).
With that same old RTR-clients would be compatible to consult new
RTR-servers, and new RTR-clients would be compatible to consult old
RTR-servers. In both cases maintaining the current minimum response level.



Em ter., 2 de mar. de 2021 às 10:14, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> escreveu:

> Dear Douglas,
>
> The negative side: I suspect there will not be much interest in changing
> the Route Origin Authorizations profile, because that profile is already
> widely used and has a specific meaning which has been implemented in
> many many software systems. It is not possible at this stage of the game
> to change ROA data structure or the meaning of ROAs!
>
> The GOOD news:
>
> Work in under way to harmonize RPKI & BGP blackholing. The IETF's draft
> submission window currently is closed, but as soon as it opens, I will
> upload a document detailing a possible way forward. (1 or 2 weeks from
> now)
>
> The proposal envisions a mechanism which will be easy to deploy on BIRD
> or OpenBGPD and other modern BGP implementations.
>
> Stay tuned!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 08:51:10AM -0300, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > I recently sent this email(below) to the NLNetLabs RPKI list.
> > https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/rpki/2021-February/000261.html
> >
> > And I was recommended to bring this topic to sidrops.
> >
> >
> > I am not yet familiar with the M.O. of this community, so I apologize and
> > accept guidance for any inappropriate behavior.
> >
> > I am concerned to keep the healthy use of RTBH viable...
> > I know that this is not the best mechanism to solve problems with DDoS
> and
> > similar.
> > But in practice, it ends up being the most cost-effective tool for the
> > operator of the ASN itself that is being targeted by what I call "silly
> > attacks" to react and evade those attacks.
> >
> > The purpose of this email is to present two possibilities that I have
> been
> > imagining for some time as good measures for RPKI.
> >
> > Note: As I know that I am locked in the point of view of those who only
> see
> > the positive side of an idea ... I am open to seeing the negative side of
> > these ideas.
> >
> > -----
> > 1 - Increase the levels, officially in the protocol, the status of a
> route
> > based on the RPKI, Specially of Invalid Status.
> > -----
> > In the email below, this concept is reasonably well described.
> > I kindly ask you to read this detail below.
> >
> > This is already possible to implement today if the protocol is "sliced" a
> > little, but it needs to be done using specific ROA validator engines, and
> > it needs to be done on a host that allows you to execute specific code,
> > which prevents this from being natively implemented and standard routers
> on
> > the market.
> >
> > The idea is to give the ASN operator the autonomy to decide (on
> > routing-filter policies) what to do with some route, based on the
> detailed
> > RPKI status of that route.
> >
> >
> > P.S .: I have observed that other initiatives are inclined to go the same
> > way of further analyzing the status of the Route based on ROA. Unless
> > mistaken, there are discussions about this in projects involving some
> > Route-Server used by several IXPs to improve Police-Filtering of RTBH.
> >
> > -----
> > 2 - Add the possibility of using the "minimum prefix length" attribute in
> > RPKI ROAs.
> > -----
> > With that, I believe that the reality of the routes generated by the ASNs
> > would be better represented. In addition to allowing ROAs exclusively
> > created for RTBH and the like to be created.
> >
> > Ex.1: An organization with an IPv4 / 16 block will rarely advertise this
> > block only with a single route. Whether for geographic reasons or for
> > routing strategy, it will probably advertise this in / 18-20 block.
> > Ex.2 .: This same organization may want to tell the world that Routes
> > originated by its own ASN, or by ASNs of scrubing companies, of the
> prefix
> > of this / 16 with the mask "LE 32" "GE 32" are valid.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your patience and comprehension.
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Fernando Fischer
> > Engº de Controle e Automação
> >
> >
> > Em ter., 23 de fev. de 2021 às 08:42, Ben Maddison
> <[e-mail]>
> > escreveu:
> >
> > > Hi Douglas,
> > >
> > > On 02/23, Douglas Fischer via RPKI wrote:
> > > > I don't know if this is the best forum to discuss this ...
> > > > If not, I apologize.
> > > >
> > > The SIDROPS WG list would probably be a better bet, but we can start
> > > here!
> > >
> > > > So far I was not aware of this draft, which already has 6 versions,
> and
> > > is
> > > > heading towards the final version.
> > > >
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-06
> > > >
> > > > As far as I could understand, the main reason for proposing this
> draft is
> > > > to enable a safe and fast way to make the security of the RPKI origin
> > > > validation also include the cases of RTBH ads that are generally of
> > > unique
> > > > IPs (/ 32 or / 128 ).
> > > >
> > > I think that you have misunderstood the intention of the draft, and in
> > > particular the latest version (which made substantial changes to the
> > > section that deals with RTBH).
> > >
> > > The point of the draft is to call attention to that fact that creating
> > > ROAs which permit the origination of more-specific prefixes than are
> > > usually present in the DFZ creates an attack vector that can be
> > > exploited by hijackers.
> > >
> > > E.g. if I create a ROA:
> > >     41.78.188.0/22, maxLength: 24, asID: 37271
> > > But then only originate:
> > >     41.78.188.0/22, AS_PATH 37271
> > >
> > > Then an attacker can announce:
> > >     41.78.191.0/24, AS_PATH 666_37271
> > >
> > > And will likely succeed in becoming the best path.
> > >
> > > It was observed that this issue is particularly present in ROAs where
> > > the issuer had made use of the maxLength field - hence the title of the
> > > draft.
> > >
> > > The draft also points out that because RTBH routes are typically for
> > > much longer prefixes, operators might be tempted to use maxLength to
> > > allow those routes to be ROV valid, and that doing so is a bad idea,
> > > because it creates the above attack vector.
> > >
> > > It doesn't try to propose any solution to the real issue of how
> ROV/RTBH
> > > should co-exist beyond that.
> > >
> > > If you think that any of the above could be made clearer in the current
> > > text, please feel free to propose changes.
> > >
> > > > Honestly, so far I am undecided as to whether this is the best
> > > methodology
> > > > for such a solution.
> > > >
> > > > Until now I was adopting (especially for route-servers) the
> methodology
> > > of
> > > > further analyzing the possible status of RPKI.
> > > > - Valid -> complements do not fit
> > > > - Unknown -> complements do not fit
> > > > - Invalid -> by previous ROA Date
> > > > - Invalid -> by Later ROA Date
> > > > - Invalid -> by ASN of Origin
> > > > - Invalid -> for less specific mask
> > > > - Invalid -> by more specific mask
> > > >
> > > > Thus, in the route filtering tests received against Blackhole I was
> using
> > > > the following logic:
> > > >
> > > > If (is into AS-SET My-Customer) and \
> > > >    (has Black-Hole-Community) and \
> > > >    ((is IPv4 and is /32) or (is IPv6 and is /128)) and \
> > > >    ((is RPKI Valid) or (is RPKI unknow) or (is RPKI invalid by mas
> more
> > > > specific)) then \
> > > >    accept as Blackhole...
> > > >
> > > > P.S.: This is a very summarized way to express the logic... I had to
> do
> > > > some gymnastics to implement it... Converting RPKI JSONs belonging to
> > > each
> > > > AS-SET to Prefix-lists.
> > > >
> > > That algorithm looks mostly sensible, and roughly similar to how we
> > > (AS37271) are planning to implement this in the next couple of months.
> > >
> > > However, I'd like to stress that is *not* proposed in
> > > draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen.
> > > Doing that would require an update to RFC6811, and I would argue
> > > strongly against it!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Ben
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Fernando Fischer
> > Engº de Controle e Automação
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sidrops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops
>
>

-- 
Douglas Fernando Fischer
Engº de Controle e Automação