-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
draft-ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp-01.html
877 lines (827 loc) · 33.4 KB
/
draft-ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp-01.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head profile="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" />
<title>Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Repository Requirements</title>
<style type="text/css" title="Xml2Rfc (sans serif)">
/*<![CDATA[*/
a {
text-decoration: none;
}
/* info code from SantaKlauss at http://www.madaboutstyle.com/tooltip2.html */
a.info {
/* This is the key. */
position: relative;
z-index: 24;
text-decoration: none;
}
a.info:hover {
z-index: 25;
color: #FFF; background-color: #900;
}
a.info span { display: none; }
a.info:hover span.info {
/* The span will display just on :hover state. */
display: block;
position: absolute;
font-size: smaller;
top: 2em; left: -5em; width: 15em;
padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #333;
color: #900; background-color: #EEE;
text-align: left;
}
a.smpl {
color: black;
}
a:hover {
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:active {
text-decoration: underline;
}
address {
margin-top: 1em;
margin-left: 2em;
font-style: normal;
}
body {
color: black;
font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;
max-width: 55em;
}
cite {
font-style: normal;
}
dd {
margin-right: 2em;
}
dl {
margin-left: 2em;
}
ul.empty {
list-style-type: none;
}
ul.empty li {
margin-top: .5em;
}
dl p {
margin-left: 0em;
}
dt {
margin-top: .5em;
}
h1 {
font-size: 14pt;
line-height: 21pt;
page-break-after: avoid;
}
h1.np {
page-break-before: always;
}
h1 a {
color: #333333;
}
h2 {
font-size: 12pt;
line-height: 15pt;
page-break-after: avoid;
}
h3, h4, h5, h6 {
font-size: 10pt;
page-break-after: avoid;
}
h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
color: black;
}
img {
margin-left: 3em;
}
li {
margin-left: 2em;
margin-right: 2em;
}
ol {
margin-left: 2em;
margin-right: 2em;
}
ol p {
margin-left: 0em;
}
p {
margin-left: 2em;
margin-right: 2em;
}
pre {
margin-left: 3em;
background-color: lightyellow;
padding: .25em;
}
pre.text2 {
border-style: dotted;
border-width: 1px;
background-color: #f0f0f0;
width: 69em;
}
pre.inline {
background-color: white;
padding: 0em;
}
pre.text {
border-style: dotted;
border-width: 1px;
background-color: #f8f8f8;
width: 69em;
}
pre.drawing {
border-style: solid;
border-width: 1px;
background-color: #f8f8f8;
padding: 2em;
}
table {
margin-left: 2em;
}
table.tt {
vertical-align: top;
}
table.full {
border-style: outset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.headers {
border-style: outset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.tt td {
vertical-align: top;
}
table.full td {
border-style: inset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.tt th {
vertical-align: top;
}
table.full th {
border-style: inset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.headers th {
border-style: none none inset none;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.left {
margin-right: auto;
}
table.right {
margin-left: auto;
}
table.center {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
caption {
caption-side: bottom;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 9pt;
margin-top: .5em;
}
table.header {
border-spacing: 1px;
width: 95%;
font-size: 10pt;
color: white;
}
td.top {
vertical-align: top;
}
td.topnowrap {
vertical-align: top;
white-space: nowrap;
}
table.header td {
background-color: gray;
width: 50%;
}
table.header a {
color: white;
}
td.reference {
vertical-align: top;
white-space: nowrap;
padding-right: 1em;
}
thead {
display:table-header-group;
}
ul.toc, ul.toc ul {
list-style: none;
margin-left: 1.5em;
margin-right: 0em;
padding-left: 0em;
}
ul.toc li {
line-height: 150%;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 10pt;
margin-left: 0em;
margin-right: 0em;
}
ul.toc li li {
line-height: normal;
font-weight: normal;
font-size: 9pt;
margin-left: 0em;
margin-right: 0em;
}
li.excluded {
font-size: 0pt;
}
ul p {
margin-left: 0em;
}
.comment {
background-color: yellow;
}
.center {
text-align: center;
}
.error {
color: red;
font-style: italic;
font-weight: bold;
}
.figure {
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
font-size: 9pt;
}
.filename {
color: #333333;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 12pt;
line-height: 21pt;
text-align: center;
}
.fn {
font-weight: bold;
}
.hidden {
display: none;
}
.left {
text-align: left;
}
.right {
text-align: right;
}
.title {
color: #990000;
font-size: 18pt;
line-height: 18pt;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
margin-top: 36pt;
}
.vcardline {
display: block;
}
.warning {
font-size: 14pt;
background-color: yellow;
}
@media print {
.noprint {
display: none;
}
a {
color: black;
text-decoration: none;
}
table.header {
width: 90%;
}
td.header {
width: 50%;
color: black;
background-color: white;
vertical-align: top;
font-size: 12pt;
}
ul.toc a::after {
content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
}
ul.ind li li a {
content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
}
.print2col {
column-count: 2;
-moz-column-count: 2;
column-fill: auto;
}
}
@page {
@top-left {
content: "Internet-Draft";
}
@top-right {
content: "December 2010";
}
@top-center {
content: "Abbreviated Title";
}
@bottom-left {
content: "Doe";
}
@bottom-center {
content: "Expires June 2011";
}
@bottom-right {
content: "[Page " counter(page) "]";
}
}
@page:first {
@top-left {
content: normal;
}
@top-right {
content: normal;
}
@top-center {
content: normal;
}
}
/*]]>*/
</style>
<link href="#rfc.toc" rel="Contents">
<link href="#rfc.section.1" rel="Chapter" title="1 Requirements notation">
<link href="#rfc.section.2" rel="Chapter" title="2 Motivation">
<link href="#rfc.section.3" rel="Chapter" title="3 Plan to prefer RRDP">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.1" rel="Chapter" title="3.1 Phase 0 - RPKI repositories support rsync, and optionally RRDP">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.1.1" rel="Chapter" title="3.1.1 Updates to RFC 8182">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.1.2" rel="Chapter" title="3.1.2 Updates to RFC 6481">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.2" rel="Chapter" title="3.2 Phase 1 - RPKI repositories support both rsync and RRDP">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.2.1" rel="Chapter" title="3.2.1 Updates to RFC 6481">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.2.2" rel="Chapter" title="3.2.2 Measurements">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.3" rel="Chapter" title="3.3 Phase 2 - All RP software prefers RRDP">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.3.1" rel="Chapter" title="3.3.1 Updates to RFC 8182">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.3.2" rel="Chapter" title="3.3.2 Measurements">
<link href="#rfc.section.4" rel="Chapter" title="4 Appendix - Implementation Status">
<link href="#rfc.section.4.1" rel="Chapter" title="4.1 Current RRDP Support in Repository Software">
<link href="#rfc.section.4.2" rel="Chapter" title="4.2 Current RRDP Support in Relying Party software">
<link href="#rfc.section.5" rel="Chapter" title="5 IANA Considerations">
<link href="#rfc.section.6" rel="Chapter" title="6 Security Considerations">
<link href="#rfc.section.7" rel="Chapter" title="7 Acknowledgements">
<link href="#rfc.references" rel="Chapter" title="8 Normative References">
<link href="#rfc.authors" rel="Chapter">
<meta name="generator" content="xml2rfc version 2.10.0 - https://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc" />
<link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" />
<meta name="dct.creator" content="Bruijnzeels, T., Bush, R., and G. Michaelson" />
<meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp-01" />
<meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2021-10-22" />
<meta name="dct.abstract" content="This document formulates a plan of a phased transition to a state where RPKI repositories and Relying Party software performing RPKI Validation will use the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) " />
<meta name="description" content="This document formulates a plan of a phased transition to a state where RPKI repositories and Relying Party software performing RPKI Validation will use the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) " />
</head>
<body>
<table class="header">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="left">Network Working Group</td>
<td class="right">T. Bruijnzeels</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left">Internet-Draft</td>
<td class="right">NLnet Labs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left">Updates: 6841, 8182 (if approved)</td>
<td class="right">R. Bush</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left">Intended status: Standards Track</td>
<td class="right">Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus, Inc.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left">Expires: April 25, 2022</td>
<td class="right">G. Michaelson</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left"></td>
<td class="right">APNIC</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left"></td>
<td class="right">October 22, 2021</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="title">Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Repository Requirements<br />
<span class="filename">draft-ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp-01</span></p>
<h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
<p>This document formulates a plan of a phased transition to a state where RPKI repositories and Relying Party software performing RPKI Validation will use the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a> as the preferred access protocol, and require rsync as a fallback option only. </p>
<p>In phase 0, today's deployment, RRDP is supported by most, but not all Repositories, and most but not all RP software. </p>
<p>In the proposed phase 1 RRDP will become mandatory to implement for Repositories, in addition to rsync. This phase can start as soon as this document is published. </p>
<p>Phase 2 will start once the proposed updates are implemented by all compliant Repositories. In this phase RRDP will become mandatory to implement for all compliant RP software, and rsync will be required as a fallback option only. </p>
<p>It should be noted that although this document currently includes descriptions and updates to RFCs for each of these phases, we may find that it will be beneficial to have one or more separate documents for these phases, so that it might be more clear to all when the updates to RFCs take effect. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.status"><a href="#rfc.status">Status of This Memo</a></h1>
<p>This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.</p>
<p>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/.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2022.</p>
<h1 id="rfc.copyrightnotice"><a href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
<p>Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
<p>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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.</p>
<hr class="noprint" />
<h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1>
<ul class="toc">
<li>1. <a href="#rfc.section.1">Requirements notation</a>
</li>
<li>2. <a href="#rfc.section.2">Motivation</a>
</li>
<li>3. <a href="#rfc.section.3">Plan to prefer RRDP</a>
</li>
<ul><li>3.1. <a href="#rfc.section.3.1">Phase 0 - RPKI repositories support rsync, and optionally RRDP</a>
</li>
<ul><li>3.1.1. <a href="#rfc.section.3.1.1">Updates to RFC 8182</a>
</li>
<li>3.1.2. <a href="#rfc.section.3.1.2">Updates to RFC 6481</a>
</li>
</ul><li>3.2. <a href="#rfc.section.3.2">Phase 1 - RPKI repositories support both rsync and RRDP</a>
</li>
<ul><li>3.2.1. <a href="#rfc.section.3.2.1">Updates to RFC 6481</a>
</li>
<li>3.2.2. <a href="#rfc.section.3.2.2">Measurements</a>
</li>
</ul><li>3.3. <a href="#rfc.section.3.3">Phase 2 - All RP software prefers RRDP</a>
</li>
<ul><li>3.3.1. <a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">Updates to RFC 8182</a>
</li>
<li>3.3.2. <a href="#rfc.section.3.3.2">Measurements</a>
</li>
</ul></ul><li>4. <a href="#rfc.section.4">Appendix - Implementation Status</a>
</li>
<ul><li>4.1. <a href="#rfc.section.4.1">Current RRDP Support in Repository Software</a>
</li>
<li>4.2. <a href="#rfc.section.4.2">Current RRDP Support in Relying Party software</a>
</li>
</ul><li>5. <a href="#rfc.section.5">IANA Considerations</a>
</li>
<li>6. <a href="#rfc.section.6">Security Considerations</a>
</li>
<li>7. <a href="#rfc.section.7">Acknowledgements</a>
</li>
<li>8. <a href="#rfc.references">Normative References</a>
</li>
<li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h1 id="rfc.section.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a> <a href="#requirements-notation" id="requirements-notation">Requirements notation</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">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 <a href="#RFC2119" class="xref">[RFC2119]</a> <a href="#RFC8174" class="xref">[RFC8174]</a> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a> <a href="#motivation" id="motivation">Motivation</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) <a href="#RFC6480" class="xref">[RFC6480]</a> as originally defined uses rsync as its distribution protocol, as outlined in <a href="#RFC6481" class="xref">[RFC6481]</a>. Later, the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a> was designed to provide an alternative. In order to facilitate incremental deployment RRDP has been deployed as an additional optional protocol, while rsync was still mandatory to implement. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.2.p.2">While rsync has been very useful in the initial deployment of RPKI, a number of issues observed with it motivated the design of RRDP, e.g.: </p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>rsync is CPU and memory heavy on the server side, and easy to DoS</li>
<li>rsync library support is lacking, complicating RP efficiency and error logging</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p id="rfc.section.2.p.4">RRDP was designed to leverage HTTPS CDN infrastructure to provide RPKI Repository content in a resilient way, while reducing the load on the Repository server. It supports updates being published as atomic deltas, which can help prevent most of the issues described in section 6 of <a href="#RFC6486" class="xref">[RFC6486]</a>. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.2.p.5">For a longer discussion please see section 1 of <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a>. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.2.p.6">In conclusion: we believe that while RRDP is not perfect, and we may indeed need future work to improve it, it is an improvement over using rsync in the context of RPKI. Therefore, this document outlines a transition plan where RRDP becomes mandatory to implement, and the operational dependency on rsync is reduced to that of a fallback option. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3">
<a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a> <a href="#plan-to-prefer-rrdp" id="plan-to-prefer-rrdp">Plan to prefer RRDP</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.p.1">Changing the RPKI infrastructure to rely on RRDP instead of rsync is a delicate operation. There is current deployment of Certification Authorities, Repository Servers and Relying Party software which relies on rsync, and which may not yet support RRDP. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.p.2">Therefore we need to have a plan that ultimately updates the relevant RFCs, but which uses a phased approach combined with measurements to limit the operational impact of doing this to (almost) zero. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.p.3">The general outline of the plan is as follows. We will describe each step in more detail below. </p>
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" class="tt full center">
<thead><tr>
<th class="center">Phase</th>
<th class="center">Description</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="center">0</td>
<td class="center">RPKI repositories support rsync, and optionally RRDP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">1</td>
<td class="center">RPKI repositories support both rsync and RRDP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">2</td>
<td class="center">All RP software prefers RRDP</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1.</a> <a href="#phase-0--rpki-repositories-support-rsync-and-optionally-rrdp" id="phase-0--rpki-repositories-support-rsync-and-optionally-rrdp">Phase 0 - RPKI repositories support rsync, and optionally RRDP</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">This is the situation at the time of writing this document. Relying Parties can prefer RRDP over rsync today. Therefore all repositories should support RRDP at their earliest convenience. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.1.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.1.1">3.1.1.</a> <a href="#updates-to-rfc-8182" id="updates-to-rfc-8182">Updates to RFC 8182</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.1">Section 3.4.5 of <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a> has the following on "Considerations Regarding Operational Failures in RRDP": </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.2">Relying Parties could attempt to use alternative repository access mechanisms, if they are available, according to the accessMethod element value(s) specified in the SIA of the associated certificate (see Section 4.8.8 of [RFC6487]). </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.3">The use of the lower case 'could' in this sentence has led some older versions of RP implementations to conclude that any fallback from RRDP to rsync as an alternative access mechanism is a local choice. However, following discussions on this subject it has become clear that there is a preference to instruct RP software to make use of all possible data sources. The main motivation being that because of RPKI object security using a secondary source of data can never lead to a worse outcome in terms of validation. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.4">Per this document text mentioned above is replaced by the following: </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.5">Relying Parties MUST attempt to use alternative repository access mechanisms, if they are available, according to the accessMethod element value(s) specified in the SIA of the associated certificate (see Section 4.8.8 of [RFC6487]). </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.1.p.6">Note that there is a risk that the rsync repository, as the alternative access mechanism, becomes overloaded in case all Relying Parties fall back to it at roughly the same time due to an issue with RRDP. Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that Relying Parties use a retry strategy and/or random jitter time before falling back to rsync. But, the fallback to rsync MUST NOT be postponed for more than 1 hour. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.1.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.1.2">3.1.2.</a> <a href="#updates-to-rfc-6481" id="updates-to-rfc-6481">Updates to RFC 6481</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.2.p.1">Section 3.3 of <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a> stipulates that RRDP files MUST be made available by repositories which support RRDP. In other words <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a> expects that RRDP repository availability is treated as a critical service wherever it is supported. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.2.p.2">Per this document the following bullet point is added to the considerations listed in in section 3 of <a href="#RFC6481" class="xref">[RFC6481]</a>: </p>
<p></p>
<ul><li>The publication repository MAY be available using the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a>. If RPDP is provided, it SHOULD be hosted on a highly available platform.</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2.</a> <a href="#phase-1--rpki-repositories-support-both-rsync-and-rrdp" id="phase-1--rpki-repositories-support-both-rsync-and-rrdp">Phase 1 - RPKI repositories support both rsync and RRDP</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">During this phase we will make RRDP mandatory to support for Repository Servers, and measure whether the deployed Repository Servers have been upgraded to do so, in as far as they don't support RRDP already. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.2.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.2.1">3.2.1.</a> <a href="#updates-to-rfc-6481-1" id="updates-to-rfc-6481-1">Updates to RFC 6481</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.1.p.1">In this phase the bullet point update to section 3 of <a href="#RFC6481" class="xref">[RFC6481]</a> mentioned above, where it was said the publication repository MAY be available using the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol is replaced by: </p>
<p></p>
<ul><li>The publication repository MUST be available using the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a>. The RRDP server SHOULD be hosted on a highly available platform.</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.2.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.2.2">3.2.2.</a> <a href="#measurements" id="measurements">Measurements</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.2.p.1">We can find out whether all RPKI repositories support RRDP by running (possibly) modified Relying Party software that keeps track of this. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.2.p.2">When it is found that Repositories do not yet support RRDP, outreach should be done to them individually. Since the number of Repositories is fairly low, and it is in their interest to run RRDP because it addresses availability concerns, we have confidence that we will find these Repositories willing to make changes. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.3">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3.</a> <a href="#phase-2--all-rp-software-prefers-rrdp" id="phase-2--all-rp-software-prefers-rrdp">Phase 2 - All RP software prefers RRDP</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.1">Once all Repositories support RRDP we can proceed to make RRDP mandatory to implement for Relying Party software. But note that RP software is not prohibited from implementing this support sooner. At the time of this writing all known RP software supports RRDP, although it is not known to the authors whether all of them have RRDP enabled and use it as the preferred protocol. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.3.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">3.3.1.</a> <a href="#updates-to-rfc-8182-1" id="updates-to-rfc-8182-1">Updates to RFC 8182</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.1">From this phase onwards the first paragraph of section 3.4.1 of <a href="#RFC8182" class="xref">[RFC8182]</a> is replaced by the following: </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.2">When a Relying Party performs RPKI validation and learns about a valid certificate with an SIA entry for the RRDP protocol, it MUST use this protocol with preference. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.3">Relying Parties MUST NOT attempt to fetch objects using alternate access mechanisms, if object retrieval through this protocol is successful. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.1.p.4">However, as stipulated in section 3.4.5, Relying Parties MUST attempt to use alternative repository access mechanisms, if object retrieval through RRDP is unsuccessful. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.3.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.3.2">3.3.2.</a> <a href="#measurements-1" id="measurements-1">Measurements</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.1">Although the tools may support RRDP, users will still need to install updated versions of these tools in their infrastructure. Any Repository operator can measure this transition by observing access to their RRDP and rsync repositories respectively. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.2.p.2">But even after new versions have been available, it is expected that there will be a long, low volume, tail of users who did not upgrade and still depend on rsync. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.4">
<a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a> <a href="#appendix--implementation-status" id="appendix--implementation-status">Appendix - Implementation Status</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.4.p.1">Note that this section is included for tracking purposes during the discussion phase of this document and is not intended to be included in an RFC. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.4.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1.</a> <a href="#current-rrdp-support-in-repository-software" id="current-rrdp-support-in-repository-software">Current RRDP Support in Repository Software</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.1">The currently known support for RRDP for repositories is as follows: </p>
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" class="tt full center">
<thead><tr>
<th class="center">Repository Implementation</th>
<th class="center">Support for RRDP</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="center">afrinic</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">apnic</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">arin</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">lacnic</td>
<td class="center">ongoing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">ripe ncc</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">Dragon Research Labs</td>
<td class="center">yes(1,2)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">krill</td>
<td class="center">yes(1)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.2">(1) in use at various National Internet Registries, as well as other resource holders under RIRs. (2) not all organizations using this software have upgraded to using RRDP. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.4.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2.</a> <a href="#current-rrdp-support-in-relying-party-software" id="current-rrdp-support-in-relying-party-software">Current RRDP Support in Relying Party software</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.1">All current versions of known Relying Party software support RRDP: </p>
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" class="tt full center">
<thead><tr>
<th class="center">Relying Party Implementation</th>
<th class="center">support</th>
<th class="center">version</th>
<th class="center">since</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="center">DRL</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">FORT</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">1.2.0</td>
<td class="center">02/2021</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">OctoRPKI</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">1.0.0</td>
<td class="center">02/2019</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">Routinator</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">0.6.0</td>
<td class="center">09/2019</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">rpki-client</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">0.7.0</td>
<td class="center">04/2021</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">RPSTIR2</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">2.0</td>
<td class="center">04/2020</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.2">But, support for RRDP does not necessarily mean that it is also enabled and preferred over rsync by default. The authors kindly request that RP implementors provide the following information: </p>
<table cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" class="tt full center">
<thead><tr>
<th class="center">Relying Party Implementation</th>
<th class="center">prefer</th>
<th class="center">version</th>
<th class="center">since</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="center">DRL</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">FORT</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">OctoRPKI</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">Routinator</td>
<td class="center">yes</td>
<td class="center">0.6.0</td>
<td class="center">09/2019</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">rpki-client</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="center">RPSTIR2</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
<td class="center">?</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h1 id="rfc.section.5">
<a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a> <a href="#iana-considerations" id="iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">This document has no IANA actions. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.6">
<a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a> <a href="#security-considerations" id="security-considerations">Security Considerations</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">TBD </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.7">
<a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a> <a href="#acknowledgements" id="acknowledgements">Acknowledgements</a>
</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">TBD </p>
<h1 id="rfc.references">
<a href="#rfc.references">8.</a> Normative References</h1>
<table><tbody>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Bradner, S.</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC6480">[RFC6480]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Lepinski, M.</a> and <a>S. Kent</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6480">An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing</a>", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480, February 2012.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC6481">[RFC6481]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Huston, G.</a>, <a>Loomans, R.</a> and <a>G. Michaelson</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6481">A Profile for Resource Certificate Repository Structure</a>", RFC 6481, DOI 10.17487/RFC6481, February 2012.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC6486">[RFC6486]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Austein, R.</a>, <a>Huston, G.</a>, <a>Kent, S.</a> and <a>M. Lepinski</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6486">Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)</a>", RFC 6486, DOI 10.17487/RFC6486, February 2012.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC8174">[RFC8174]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Leiba, B.</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174">Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</a>", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC8182">[RFC8182]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Bruijnzeels, T.</a>, <a>Muravskiy, O.</a>, <a>Weber, B.</a> and <a>R. Austein</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8182">The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)</a>", RFC 8182, DOI 10.17487/RFC8182, July 2017.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
<div class="avoidbreak">
<address class="vcard">
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="fn">Tim Bruijnzeels</span>
<span class="n hidden">
<span class="family-name">Bruijnzeels</span>
</span>
</span>
<span class="org vcardline">NLnet Labs</span>
<span class="adr">
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="locality"></span>
<span class="region"></span>
<span class="code"></span>
</span>
<span class="country-name vcardline"></span>
</span>
<span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:tim@nlnetlabs.nl">tim@nlnetlabs.nl</a></span>
<span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/">https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/</a></span>
</address>
</div><div class="avoidbreak">
<address class="vcard">
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="fn">Randy Bush</span>
<span class="n hidden">
<span class="family-name">Bush</span>
</span>
</span>
<span class="org vcardline">Internet Initiative Japan & Arrcus, Inc.</span>
<span class="adr">
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="locality"></span>
<span class="region"></span>
<span class="code"></span>
</span>
<span class="country-name vcardline"></span>
</span>
<span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:randy@psg.com">randy@psg.com</a></span>
</address>
</div><div class="avoidbreak">
<address class="vcard">
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="fn">George Michaelson</span>
<span class="n hidden">
<span class="family-name">Michaelson</span>
</span>
</span>
<span class="org vcardline">APNIC</span>
<span class="adr">
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="locality"></span>
<span class="region"></span>
<span class="code"></span>
</span>
<span class="country-name vcardline"></span>
</span>
<span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:ggm@apnic.net">ggm@apnic.net</a></span>
<span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.apnic.net">http://www.apnic.net</a></span>
</address>
</div>
</body>
</html>