Subject: [Rps] Latest RPSLng draft -second try

From: "Larry J. Blunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Nov 2003 15:34:39 -0500

My first try didn't make it through because the post was
too big.  I've added the draft inline this time.

I've enclosed the latest draft of the RPSLng spec.  I've left the
afi definition section as it was previously as I don't think there
was consensus to change the meaning of ipv4 and ipv6 to include
both unicast and multicast.  Please let me know if there are any
strong feelings about this.  One option could be to add ipv4.any
and ipv6.any types as a shorthand for ipv4.unicast,ipv4.multicast and
ipv6.unicast,ipv6.multicast.  However, I'm not sure if this doesn't
actually make things worse by creating more clutter in the spec.

   I've reduced the encapsulation types for the tunnel option in
the interface: attribute to just GRE and IPinIP.  IPinIP was
deemed sufficient since you already know the address types
of the encapsulating end-points.  DVMRP was dropped since the
protocol/encapsulation method seems to be deprecated at this point.
Should we add other encapsulation methods to this attribute?  For
example, LT2P, PPTP, or IPSec?   Would it be useful to have an
afi specification to indentify/restrict the address family types
carried across the tunnel?

 -Larry Blunk
  Merit

Network Working Group                                           L. Blunk
Internet-Draft                                             Merit Network
Updates: 2262, 2725 (if approved)                               J. Damas
Expires: May 20, 2004                       Internet Software Consortium
                                                               F. Parent
                                                                Viagenie
                                                          A. Robachevsky
                                                                RIPE NCC
                                                       November 20, 2003

     Routing Policy Specification Language next generation (RPSLng)
                       draft-blunk-rpslng-02.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo presents a new set of simple extensions to the Routing
   Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [1] enabling the language to
   document routing policies for the IPv6 and multicast address families
   currently used in the Internet.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.    Specifying routing policy for different address families . .  4
   2.1   Ambiguity Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2   The afi dictionary attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.3   RPSL dictionary extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.4   IPv6 RPSL types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.5   mp-import, mp-export, and mp-default . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.5.1 <mp-peering> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.5.2 <mp-filter>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.5.3 Policy examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.    route6 Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.    Updates to existing Classes to support the extensions  . . . 10
   4.1   as-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.2   route-set Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.3   filter-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.4   peering-set Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.5   inet-rtr Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.6   rtr-set Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.    RFC 2725 extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.1   Authorization model for route6 Objects . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.    Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
         Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
         Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
         Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 21

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

1. Introduction

   RFC 2622 [1] defines the RPSL language for the IPv4 unicast routing
   protocols and a series of guidelines for extending the RPSL language
   itself.  Additionally, security extensions to the RPSL language are
   specified in RFC 2725 [2].

   This document proposes to extend RPSL according to the following
   goals and requirements:

   o  Provide RPSL extensibility in the dimension of address families.
      Specifically, to allow users to document routing policy for IPv6
      and multicast.

   o  Extensions should be backward compatible with minimal impact on
      existing tools and processes, following Section 10 of RFC 2622 [1]
      for guidelines on extending RPSL.

   o  Maintain clarity and non-ambiguity: RPSL information is used by
      humans in addition to software tools.

   o  Minimize duplication of information, particularly when routing
      policies for different address families are the same.

   The addition of IPv6 and multicast support to RPSL leads to four
   distinct routing policies that need to be distinguished in this
   specification, namely, (IPv4 {unicast|multicast}, IPv6
   {unicast|multicast}).

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

2. Specifying routing policy for different address families

   Routing policy is currently specified in the aut-num class using
   "import:", "export:", and "default:" attributes. Sometimes it is
   important to distinguish policy for different address families, as
   well as a unicast routing policy from a multicast one.

   While the syntax of the existing import, export, and default
   attributes could be extended, this would present backward
   compatibility issues and could undermine clarity in the expressions.

   Keeping this in mind, the "import:", "export:", and "default:"
   attributes implicitly specify IPv4 unicast policy and remain as
   defined previously in RPSL, and new multi-protocol (prefixed with the
   string "mp-") attributes are introduced. These new "mp-" attributes
   will be described below.

2.1 Ambiguity Resolution

   It is possible that the same peering can be covered by more than one
   multi-protocol policy attribute or by a combination of multi-protocol
   policy attributes (when specifying IPv4 unicast policy) and the
   previously defined IPv4 unicast policy attributes.  In these cases,
   implementations should follow the specification-order rule as defined
   in Section 6.4 of RFC 2622 [1].  Namely, to break the ambiguity, the
   action corresponding to the first peering specification is used.

2.2 The afi dictionary attribute

   In this section we introduce a new dictionary attribute:

   Address Family Identifier, <afi>, is an RPSL list of address families
   for which a given routing policy expression should be evaluated.
   <afi> is mandatory within the new multi-protocol attributes
   introduced in the aut-num class.

   The possible values for <afi> are:

      ipv4
      ipv4.unicast (equivalent to ipv4)
      ipv4.multicast
      ipv6
      ipv6.unicast (equivalent to ipv6)
      ipv6.multicast

   Appearance of these values in an attribute must be preceded by the
   keyword afi.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   An <afi-list> is defined as a comma separated list of one or more afi
   values.

2.3 RPSL dictionary extensions

   In order to support IPv6 addresses specified with the next-hop
   rp-attribute, a new predefined dictionary type entitled
   "ipv6_address" is added to the RPSL dictionary.   The definition of
   this type is taken from Section 2.2 of RFC 3513 [3].

   The next-hop rp-attribute is expanded in the dictionary as follows:

   rp-attribute: # next hop router in a static route
                 next-hop
                 operator=(union ipv4_address, ipv6_address, enum[self])

   A new value has been added for the <protocol> dictionary
   specification:

      MPBGP

   MPBGP is understood to be BGP4 with multi-protocol extensions (often
   referred to as BGP4+).  BGP4+ could not be used as the '+' character
   is not allowed by the RPSL specification in protocol names.

2.4 IPv6 RPSL types

   This document will reference three new IPv6 RPSL types, namely,
   <ipv6-address>, <ipv6-address-prefix>, and
   <ipv6-address-prefix-range>.  The <ipv6-address> and
   <ipv6-address-prefix> types are defined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of
   RFC 3513 [3]. The <ipv6-address-prefix-range> type adds a range
   operator to the <ipv6-address-prefix> type.  The range operator is
   defined in Section 2 of RFC 2622 [1].

2.5 mp-import, mp-export, and mp-default

   Three new policy attributes are introduced in the aut-num Class:

      mp-import:
      mp-export:
      mp-default:

   These attributes incorporate the afi (address-family) specification.
   The mp-import and mp-export attributes have both a basic policy
   specification and a more powerful structured policy specification.

   The syntax for the mp-default attribute and the basic policy

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   specification of the mp-import and mp-export attributes is as
   follows:

   Attribute  Value                                         Type
   mp-import  [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              afi <afi-list>                                multi-valued
              from <mp-peering-1> [action <action-1>]
              . . .
              from <mp-peering-N> [action <action-N>]
              accept <mp-filter>

   mp-export  [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              afi <afi-list>                                multi-valued
              to <mp-peering-1> [action <action-1>]
              . . .
              to <mp-peering-N> [action <action-N>]
              announce <mp-filter>

   mp-default afi <afi-list> to <mp-peering>                optional,
              [action <action>] [networks <mp-filter>]      multi-valued

   The mp-import and mp-export policies can be structured.  As with RFC
   2622 [1], structured policies are recommended only to advanced RPSL
   users.  For the sake of brevity, only the mp-import structured policy
   syntax is defined below.   The mp-export structured policy syntax is
   expressed in a symmetric way to the mp-import attribute.

   mp-import ::=
          [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]
<import-expression>

   <import-expression> ::=
          afi <afi-list> <import-term> accept <mp-filter> |
          afi <afi-list> <import-term> accept <mp-filter> EXCEPT
                                                 <import-expression> |
          afi <afi-list> <import-term> accept <mp-filter> REFINE
                                                 <import-expression>

   <import-term> ::=  <import-factor> |
                      {
                        <import-factor>
                        ...
                        <import-factor>
                      }

   <import-factor> ::= from <mp-peering> [action <action>];

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

2.5.1 <mp-peering>

   <mp-peering> indicates the AS (and the router if present) and is
   defined as follows:

   <mp-peering> ::= <as-expression> [<mp-router-expression-1>]
                    [at <mp-router-expression-2>] | <peering-set-name>

   where <as-expression> is an expression over AS numbers and AS sets
   using operators AND, OR, and EXCEPT, and <mp-router-expression> is an
   expression over router ipv4-addresses or ipv6-addresses, inet-rtr
   names, and rtr-set names using operators AND, OR, and EXCEPT.  The
   binary "EXCEPT" operator is the set subtraction operator and has the
   same precedence as the operator AND (it is semantically equivalent to
   "AND NOT" combination).  That is "(AS1 OR AS2) EXCEPT AS2" equals
   "AS1".

2.5.2 <mp-filter>

   The <mp-filter> policy filter expression is derived from the RPSL
   <filter> policy filter expression defined in section 5.4 of RFC 2622
   [1]. <mp-filter> extends the <filter> expression to allow the
   specification of IPv6 prefixes and prefix ranges. In particular, an
   Address-Prefix Set expression in an <mp-filter> expression may
   include both IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes or prefix ranges. <mp-filter> is
   otherwise identical to the RPSL <filter> expression.   Address-Prefix
   Sets are enclosed in braces '{' and '}'. The policy filter matches
   the set of routes whose destination address-prefix is in the set.
   For example:

      { 198.108.0.0/16, 3ffe:ffff:240::/48 }
      { 3ffe:ffff:580::/48^+, 3ffe:ffff:600::/48^64 }

2.5.3 Policy examples

   The address family may be specified at any level of nesting of
   <import-expression>, and is valid only within the <import-expression>
   that contains it.

   Therefore in the example:

   aut-num:    AS65534
   mp-import: afi ipv6.unicast,ipv4 from AS65001 action pref = 1; accept
as-foo
               except { afi ipv6.unicast,ipv4
               from AS65002 action pref = 2; accept AS65226
                  except { afi ipv6.unicast
                  from AS65003 action pref = 3; accept {3FFE:FFFF::/32}

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

                         }
                       }

   the last (rightmost) "except" is evaluated only for the IPv6 unicast
   address family, while other import-expressions are evaluated for both
   the IPv6 and IPv4 unicast address families.

   The evaluation of an <import-expression> is done by evaluating all of
   its components. Evaluation of peering-sets and filter-sets is
   constrained by the address family.  Such constraints may result in a
   {NOT ANY} <mp-filter> or invalid <mp-peering> depending on implicit
   or explicit definitions of the address family in the set.  An RPSL
   evaluation implementation may wish to issue a warning in the case of
   a {NOT ANY} <mp-filter>.

   Conflicts with explicit or implicit declarations are resolved at
   runtime, that is, during the evaluation of a policy expression. For
   example, when evaluating the following import policy:

   aut-num: AS65002
   mp-import: afi ipv6 from AS65001 accept {193.0.0.0/22}

   the mp-filter should be evaluated as {NOT ANY}.  A more complex
   example follows:

   aut-num: AS65002
   mp-import: afi ipv6.unicast {
      from AS-ANY action med = 0; accept {3FFE:FFFF::/32};
      } refine { afi ipv6.unicast
           from AS65001 at 3FFE:FFFF::1 action pref = 1; accept
AS-UPSTREAM;
           from prng6-ebgp-peers action pref = 2; accept AS65001;
      }

   In this example, only IPv6 prefixes originated by AS65001 will be
   collected, and when evaluating the as-set AS-UPSTREAM, only IPv6
   prefixes of the member ASes will be considered.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

3. route6 Class

   The route6 class is the IPv6 equivalent of the route class. As with
   the route class, the class key for the route6 class is specified by
   the route6 and origin attribute pair.  Other than the route6
   attribute, the route6 class shares the same attribute names with the
   route class.  While the attribute names remain identical, the inject,
   components, exports-comps, holes, and mnt-routes attributes must
   specify IPv6 prefixes and addresses rather than IPv4 prefixes and
   addresses.  This requirement is reflected by the specification of
   <ipv6-router-expression>, <ipv6-filter>, and <ipv6-address-prefix>
   below.  <ipv6-address-prefix> has been previously defined.
   <ipv6-filter> is related to <mp-filter> as defined above in Section
   2.5.2 with the exception that only <ipv6-address-prefix> types are
   permitted. Similarly, <ipv6-router-expression> is related to
   <mp-router-expression> as defined above in Section 2.5.1 with the
   exception that only <ipv6-address> types are permitted.

   Note that <ipv6-address-prefix> may be of either type ipv6.unicast or
   type ipv6.multicast.  An IPv6 multicast address is indentified by the
   binary 11111111 at the start of the address.  For futher reference,
   please see Section 2.7 of RFC 3513 [3].

   Attribute     Value                             Type
   route6        <ipv6-address-prefix>             mandatory, class key,
                                                   single-valued
   origin        <as-number>                       mandatory, class key,
                                                   single-valued
   member-of     list of <route-set-name>          optional,
multi-valued
   inject        [at <ipv6-router-expression>] ... optional,
multi-valued
                 [action <action>]
                 [upon <condition>]
   components    [ATOMIC] [[<ipv6-filter>]         optional,
single-valued
                 [protocol <protocol> <ipv6-filter> ...]]
   aggr-bndry    <as-expression>                   optional,
single-valued
   aggr-mtd      inbound or outbound               optional,
single-valued
                 [<as-expression>]
   export-comps  <ipv6-filter>                     optional,
single-valued
   holes         list of <ipv6-address-prefix>     optional,
multi-valued
   mnt-lower     list of <mntner-name>             optional,
multi-valued
   mnt-routes    list of <mntner-name>             optional,
multi-valued
                 [{list of <ipv6-address-prefix-range>} or ANY]

   Example:

   route6:   3ffe:ffff:240::/48
   origin:   AS65001

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

4. Updates to existing Classes to support the extensions

4.1 as-set Class

   The as-set class defines a set of Autonomous Systems (AS), specified
   either directly by listing them in the members attribute, or
   indirectly by referring to another as-sets or using the mbrs-by-ref
   facility. More importantly, "In a context that expects a route set
   (e.g.  members attribute of the route-set class), [...] an as-set
   AS-X defines the set of routes that are originated by the ASes in
   AS-X.", (section 5.3 of  RFC 2622 [1]).

   The as-set class is therefore used to collect a set of route
   prefixes, which may be restricted to a specific address family.

   The existing as-set class does not need any modifications. The
   evaluation of the class must be filtered to obtain prefixes belonging
   to a particular address family using the traditional filtering
   mechanism in use in Internet Routing Registry (IRR) systems today.

4.2 route-set Class

   This class is used to specify a set of route prefixes.

   A new attribute "mp-members:" is defined for this class.  This
   attributes allow the specification of IPv4 or IPv6
   address-prefix-ranges.

   Attribute   Value                                 Type
   mp-members  list of (<ipv4-address-prefix-range>  optional,
multi-valued
               or <ipv6-address-prefix-range>
               or <route-set-name>
               or <route-set-name><range-operator>)

   Example:

   route-set:  rs-foo
   mp-members: rs-bar
   mp-members: 3FFE:FFFF::/32  # v6 member
   mp-members: 128.9.0.0/16    # v4 member

4.3 filter-set Class

   The new "mp-filter:" attribute defines the set's policy filter.  A
   policy filter is a logical expression which when applied to a set of
   routes returns a subset of these routes.  The relevant parts of the

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   updated filter-set class are shown below:

   Attribute   Value                  Type
   filter-set  <object-name>          mandatory, single-valued, class
key
   filter      <filter>               optional, single-valued
   mp-filter   <mp-filter>            optional, single-valued
   ...

   Where <mp-filter> is defined above in Section 2.5.2. While the
   "filter:" and "mp-filter:" attributes are of type "optional", a
   filter-set must contain one of these two attributes.  Implementations
   should reject instances where both attributes are defined in an
   object as the interpretation of such a filter-set is undefined.

4.4 peering-set Class

   The peering set class is updated with a "mp-peering:" attribute.

   Attribute    Value                 Type
   peering-set  <object-name>         mandatory, single-valued, class
key
   peering      <peering>             optional, multi-valued
   mp-peering   <mp-peering>          optional, multi-valued
   ...

   Example:

   peering-set:   prng-ebgp-peers
   mp-peering:    AS65002 3FFE:FFFF::1 at 3FFE:FFFF::2

   With <mp-peering> defined as above in Section 2.5.1. While the
   "peering:" and "mp-peering:" attributes are of type "optional", a
   peering-set must contain at least one of these two attributes.

4.5 inet-rtr Class

   Two new attributes are introduced to the inet-rtr class --
   "interface:" which allows the definition of generic interfaces,
   including the information previously contained in the "ifaddr:"
   attribute, as well as support for tunnel definitions. And,
   "mp-peer:", which includes and extends the functionality of the
   existing "peer:" attribute.

   Below is the syntax definition for the new "interface:" attribute.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   Attribute  Value                                 Type
   interface  <ipv4-address> or <ipv6-address>      optional,
multi-valued
              masklen <mask>
              [action <action>]
              [tunnel <remote-endpoint-address>,<encapsulation>]

   The new syntax allows native IPv4 and IPv6 interface definitions as
   well as the definition of tunnels as virtual interfaces. Without the
   optional tunnel definition, this attribute allows the same
   functionality as the "ifaddr:" attribute but extends it to allow IPv6
   addresses.

   In the case of the interface being a tunnel, the syntax is as
   follows:

   <remote-endpoint-address> indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the
   remote endpoint of the tunnel. The address family must match that of
   the local endpoint. <encapsulation> denotes the encapsulation used in
   the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP}.  Routing policies for these
   routers should be described in the appropriate classes (e.g.
   aut-num).

   The "mp-peer:" attribute is defined below.  The difference between
   this attribute and the "peer:" attribute is the inclusion of support
   for IPv6 addresses.

   Attribute  Value                                     Type
   mp-peer    <protocol> <ipv4-address> <options>  or   optional,
              <protocol> <ipv6-address> <options>  or   multi-valued
              <protocol> <inet-rtr-name> <options> or
              <protocol> <rtr-set-name> <options>  or
              <protocol> <peering-set-name> <options>

   where <protocol> is a protocol name, and <options> is a comma
   separated list of peering options for <protocol> as provided in the
   RPSL dictionary.

4.6 rtr-set Class

   The rtr-set class is extended with a new attribute, "mp-members:",
   defined as

   Attribute   Value                             Type
   mp-members  list of (<inet-rtr-name> or       optional, multi-valued
               <rtr-set-name> or
               <ipv4-address> or
               <ipv6-address>)

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   This attribute extends the original "members:" attribute by allowing
   the specification of IPv6 addresses.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

5. RFC 2725 extensions

   RFC 2725 [2] introduces an authorization model to address the
   integrity of policy expressed in routing registries.  In particular,
   two new attributes were defined to support this authorization model,
   namely, the "mnt-routes" and "mnt-lower" attributes.

   In RPSLng, these attributes are extended to the route6 and inet6num
   (described below) classes.  Further, the syntax of the existing
   mnt-routes attribute is modified to allow the optional specification
   of IPv6 prefix range lists when present in inet6num, route6, and
   aut-num class objects. This optional list of prefix ranges is a
   comma-separated list enclosed in curly braces.  In the aut-num class,
   the IPv6 prefix ranges may be mixed with IPv4 prefix ranges.  The
   keyword "ANY" many also be used instead of prefix ranges.  In the
   case of inet6num and route6 objects, "ANY" refers to all more
   specifics of the prefix in the class key field.  For the aut-num
   class, "ANY" literally means any prefix. The default when no
   additional set items are specified is "ANY".

   The following is an example of mnt-routes usage.  This example
   authorizes MAINT-65001 to create route6 objects with an origin AS of
   65002 for IPv6 address prefixes within the 3ffe:ffff::/32^+ range,
   and route objects with origin AS 65002 for IPv4 prefixes within the
   35.42.0.0/16^+ range.

   aut-num: AS65002
   mnt-routes: MAINT-AS65001 {3ffe:ffff::/32^+, 35.42.0.0/16^+}

   Note, the inclusion of IPv6 prefix ranges within a mnt-routes
   attribute in an aut-num object may conflict with existing
   implementations of RPSL which support only IPv4 prefix ranges.
   However, given the perceived lack of implementation of this optional
   prefix range list, it was considered acceptable to extend the
   existing definition of the mnt-routes attribute in the aut-num class
   rather than creating a new attribute type.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   Attribute     Value                    Type
   inet6num      <ipv6-address-prefix>    mandatory, single-valued,
                                          class key
   netname       <netname>                mandatory, single-valued
   descr         <free-form>              mandatory, multi-valued
   country       <country-code>           mandatory, multi-valued
   admin-c       <nic-handle>             mandatory, multi-valued
   tech-c        <nic-handle>             mandatory, multi-valued
   remarks       <free-form>              optional, multi-valued
   notify        <email-address>          optional, multi-valued
   mnt-lower     list of <mntner-name>    optional, multi-valued
   mnt-routes    list of <mntner-name>    optional, multi-valued
                 [{list of <ipv6-address-prefix-range>} or ANY]
   mnt-by        list of <mntner-name>    mandatory, multi-valued
   changed       <email-address> <date>   mandatory, multi-valued
   source        <registry-name>          mandatory, single-valued

   The <country-code> must be a valid two-letter ISO 3166 country code
   identifier.  <netname> is a symbolic name for the specified IPv6
   address space.  It does not have a restriction on RPSL reserved
   prefixes. These definitions are taken from the RIPE Database
   Reference Manual [4].

5.1 Authorization model for route6 Objects

   Deletion and update of a route6 object is not different from other
   objects, as defined in RFC 2725 [2]. Creation rules of a route6
   object is replicated here from the corresponding rules for route
   object in RFC 2725 [2] section 9.9.

   When adding a route6 object, the submission must satisfy two
   authentication criteria. It must match the authentication specified
   in the aut-num object and the authentication specified in either a
   route6 object or if no applicable route6 object is found, then an
   inet6num object.

   An addition is submitted with an AS number and IPv6 prefix as its
   key. If the aut-num object does not exist on a route6 to add, then
   the addition is rejected. If the aut-num exists then the submission
   is checked against the applicable maintainers. A search is then done
   for the prefix first looking for an exact match. If the search for an
   exact match fails, a search is made for the longest prefix match that
   is less specific than the prefix specified. If this search succeeds
   it will return one or more route6 objects. The submission must match
   an applicable maintainer in at least one of these route6 objects for
   the addition to succeed. If the search for a route6 object fails,
   then a search is performed for an inet6num object that exactly

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   matches the prefix or for the most specific inet6num that is less
   specific than the route6 object submission.

   Having found the aut-num and either a list of route6 objects or an
   inet6num, the authorization is taken from these objects. The
   applicable maintainer object is any referenced by the mnt-routes
   attributes. If one or more mnt-routes attributes are present in an
   object, the mnt-by or mnt-lower attributes are not considered. In the
   absence of a mnt-routes attribute in a given object, then first
   mnt-lower attributes are used (only in the case the given object is
   inet6num object and it is less specific than the route6 object to be
   added), and if no applicable mnt-lower attribute is found, then the
   mnt-by attributes are used for that object. The authentication must
   match one of the authorization in each of the two objects.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

6. Security Considerations

   This document describes extensions to RFC 2622 [1] and RFC 2725 [2].
   The extensions address the limitations of the aforementioned
   documents with respect to IPv6 and multicast.   The extensions do not
   introduce any new security functionality or threats.

   While the extensions introduce no additional security threats, it
   should be noted that the original RFC 2622 [1] RPSL standard included
   several weak and/or vulnerable authentication mechanisms.  First, the
   "MAIL-FROM" scheme, which can be easily defeated via source email
   address spoofing.  Secondly, the "CRYPT-PW" scheme, which is subject
   to dictionary attacks and password sniffing if RPSL objects are
   submitted via unencrypted channels such as email.  And finally, the
   "NONE" mechanism, which offers no protection for objects.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

7. Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank all the people who have contributed to this
   document through numerous discussions.

   Particularly Ekaterina Petrusha for highly valuable discussions and
   suggestions. Shane Kerr, Engin Gunduz, Mark Blanchet and David
   Kessens participated constructively in many discussions. Finally,
   Cengiz Alaettinoglu who is still the reference in all things RPSL.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

Normative References

   [1]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
        Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D. and M. Terpstra, "Routing
        Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622, June 1999.

   [2]  Villamizar, C., Alaettinoglu, C., Meyer, D. and S. Murphy,
        "Routing Policy System Security", RFC 2725, December 1999.

   [3]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
        Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

Informative References

   [4]  Damas, J. and A. Robachevsky, "RIPE Database Reference Manual",
        August 2002.

Authors' Addresses

   Larry Blunk
   Merit Network

   EMail: [email-masked]

   Joao Damas
   Internet Software Consortium

   EMail: [email-masked]

   Florent Parent
   Viagenie

   EMail: [email-masked]

   Andrei Robachevsky
   RIPE NCC

   EMail: [email-masked]

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                   RPSLng                    November 2003

   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Blunk, et al.             Expires May 20, 2004                 [Page 22]


_______________________________________________
Rps mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rps