<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.17 (Ruby 3.0.2) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-xu-risav-00" category="exp" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.14.2 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="RISAV">An RPKI and IPsec-based End-to-End Approach for Source Address Validation</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-xu-risav-00"/>
    <author initials="K." surname="Xu" fullname="Ke Xu">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>xuke@tsinghua.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="J." surname="Wu" fullname="Jianping Wu">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>jianping@cernet.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="Y." surname="Guo" fullname="Yangfei Guo">
      <organization>Zhongguancun Laboratory</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>guoyangfei@zgclab.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="H. (Henry)" surname="Wang" fullname="Haiyang (Henry) Wang">
      <organization>The University of Minnesota at Duluth</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Minnesota</city>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>haiyang@d.umn.edu</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2022" month="September" day="15"/>
    <area>Security Area</area>
    <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>Because the Internet forwards packets according to the IP destination address, packet forwarding typically takes no place with inspection of the source address. Therefore, malicious attacks or behaviors have been launched with spoofed source addresses. This document defines using RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) and IPsec (IP Security) to reinforce the security of source addresses in the inter-domain layer.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>IP spoofing has been a long-recognized threat to Internet security for decades. Source Address Validation (SAV)  provides the integrity of the source address to IP packet. Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) has been proposed at <xref target="RFC5210"/>. Inter-domain source address validation has long served as the primary defense mechanism due to its better cost-effectiveness. However, over years of effort, inter-domain source address validation deployment is still not optimistic. An important reason for this is the difficulty of balancing the clear security benefits of partial implementations with the scalability of large-scale deployments. uRPF <xref target="RFC5635"/>, for example, routing-based schemes filter spoofed traffic, which may result in a lack of security benefits due to the dynamic nature of routing or incomplete information caused by partial deployments.</t>
      <t>This document provides an RPKI and IPsec-based inter-domain end-to-end approach to source address validation (RISAV). RISAV is a cryptography-based SAV to guarantee consistent security benefits, which combines RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure), IKE (Internet Key Exchange), and IPsec AH (IPsec Authentication Header). RPKI provides the reflection relationship between AS numbers (ASN) and IP prefixes. IKE negotiates between two ASes with the Security Association (SA) which contains the algorithm, secret key generating material, and IPsec packet type, and so forth. IPsec AH is the authentication header that is used to provide authenticity of the whole packet, including the source address, in IPsec.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terms-and-definitions">
      <name>Terms and Definitions</name>
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      <t>Commonly used terms in this document are described below.</t>
      <dl>
        <dt>ACS:</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>AS Control Server, which is responsible for delivering tags and other information to ASBR.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>ASBR:</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>AS border router, which is at the boundary of an AS that runs BGP.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>Tag:</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>The bit-string that authenticates identification of source address of a packet.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>Signature:</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>The final bit-string is placed at the AH's field, which is different for each packet.</t>
        </dd>
      </dl>
    </section>
    <section anchor="overview">
      <name>Overview</name>
      <t>RISAV is a cryptography-based end-to-end inter-domain source address validation method that guarantees security benefits at partial deployment. RISAV uses RPKI to obtain the binding relationship between AS numbers and IP prefixes. After that, it uses IKE to negotiate the IKE SA and IPsec SA for generating the tag presenting the integrity of the IP source address. And the IPsec Authentication Header (AH) would be used to carry the tag in communication.</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>RPKI process. The five Reginal Internet Registry (RIR) would be authorized by IANA. They use their root certificate to sign the Certificate Authority (CA) certificate of the Local Internet Registry (LIR). And after that LIR would use a CA certificate to authorize indirectly the Internet Service Provider (ISP) or directly the Autonomous System (AS). When they obtain their own CA certificate, the AS would sign an End Entity (EE) certificate with a Route Origin Authorisation (ROA) which is a cryptographically signed object that states which AS are authorized to originate a certain prefix. Such the reflection of ASN relationship with IP prefixes would be broadcast to the network.</li>
        <li>Sign ASBR EE certificate. This EE certificate is just like the BGPsec Router Certificate defined in <xref target="RFC8209"/>. The ASBR would need its own EE certificate for and only for generating and verifying the signature in the AH header directly or indirectly.</li>
        <li>IKE process. Before IPsec establishing, the SA must be reached an agreement. There are two ways to negotiate the SA. One is mutual config all the parameters and the other one is using IKE for dynamic negotiating these parameters. Currently used is IKE version 2 (IKEv2, for short using IKE below). Typically, IKE would produce IKE SA in the IKE_SA_INIT exchange and IPsec SA in the IKE_AUTH exchange. This will be done in an ACS.</li>
        <li>SA or tag delivery. When all negotiations are done, the IPsec is established. If the ACS is an ASBR actually, it would deliver SA to the other ASBR in this AS. Otherwise, it would deliver the tags generated by the state machine. This delivery will be processed in a secure channel just like using IPsec ESP.</li>
        <li>IPsec AH communication. It uses IPsec AH for authentication of the IP source address.  IPsec is offten used in tunnel mode as the IPsec VPN. Here, It expands the gateway to the AS border router (ASBR). When two ends x and y in AS X and Y respectively are communicating, the packet from x arriving at its ASBR RA would use the established IPsec channel for adding the representative tag. After the packet arrives at ASBR RB of AS Y, it would be inspected by comparing the consistency of the tag. The tag will be encapsulated in the ICV field in AH.</li>
      </ol>
      <t>A typical workflow of RESAVRI is shown in <xref target="figure1"/>.</t>
      <figure anchor="figure1">
        <name>ERISAV workflow example.</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
                            +--------------+                               
                            |     IANA     |                               
                            +--------------+
                                   |--------------------------+
                                   V                          |
                            +--------------+                  |
                            |      RIR     |                  |
                            +--------------+                  |
                           /                \-----------------+-1. signed CA
                          V                  V                |  certificate
              +--------------+               +--------------+ |
              |     LIR1     |               |     LIR2     | |
              +--------------+               +--------------+ |
              /                                             \-+
             V   +------ 2. signed EE ceritficate -------+   V
+--------------+ |                                       | +--------------+
|              | |    --------------------------------   | |              |
|              | |          3. IKE negotiation           | |              |
|     AS A     | |    --------------------------------   | |     AS B     |
|              | V                                       V |              |
|           ########  --------------------------------  ########          |
|           # ASBR #           4. SA Deliver            # ASBR #          |
|           ########  --------------------------------  ########          |
|              |                                           |   Prefix Y   |
|   Prefix X   |      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++    | Public Key B |
| Public Key A |           5. data transmission            |              |
|              |              using IPsec AH               |              |
|              |      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++    |              |
+--------------+                                           +--------------+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>
    <section anchor="control-plane">
      <name>Control Plane</name>
      <t>The functions of the control plane of RISAV include ASN-Prefix relationship announcement, Tag management, and ASN-Tag relationship announcement.</t>
      <section anchor="asn-prefix-relationship-announcement">
        <name>ASN-Prefix relationship announcement</name>
        <t>RISAV uses RPKI to manage the relationship between ASN and IP prefixes. So when one AS wants to deploy RISAV, it should implement RPKI first. When RPKI is deployed, the validated ROA cache SHOULD be sent to the ASBR for routing and forwarding packets.</t>
        <t>The ROA whose status is valid can be used with IPsec to prevent source address spoofing. That means only the prefix contained in valid ROA would valuably and correctly be protected.</t>
        <t>For more information about RPKI, one can refer to <xref target="RFC6480"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="tag-management">
        <name>Tag management</name>
        <t>Before introducing the ASN-Tag relationship announcement, it shall be described what is a tag and how it is generated.</t>
        <t>A tag is a variable bit-string that is generated at an entity in AS. This entity is AS Control Server (ACS). The tag is used with the authentication algorithm to generate the signature. That means the tag is the key to the authentication. When communicating, the tag would not be directly tagged to the IPsec AH of the packet, replacing it with a signature instead, which will be different with different packets. One AS SHOULD have at most two tags in effect in the same bound simultaneously for Key-Rover.</t>
        <t>It has two ways for an ACS to generate tags. One is using a state machine. The state machine runs and triggers the state transition when time is up. The tag is generated in the process of state transition as the side product. The two ACS in peer AS respectively before data transmission will maintain one state machine pair for each bound. The state machine runs simultaneously after the initial state, state transition algorithm, and state transition interval are negotiated, thus they generate the same tag at the same time. Time triggers state transition which means the ACS MUST synchronize the time to the same time base using like NTP defined in <xref target="RFC5905"/>.</t>
        <t>The other way to generate a tag is by applying the original SA. The IPsec channel is established when the IKE_AUTH process is finished. SA includes the specified AH, the authentication algorithm, the key used for authentication, etc. So two IKE entities have negotiated SA. All ASBR in one AS SHOULD use the same SA.</t>
        <t>When it chooses to use a logical ACS, one AS will elect one distinguished ASBR as the ACS. The distinguished ASBR acting as an ACS will represent the whole AS to communicate with peer AS's ACS. This election takes place prior to the IKE negotiation. An ASBR MUST be a BGP speaker before it is elected as the distinguished ASBR. This is an OPTIONAL operation to use this logical ACS.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="asn-tag-relationship-announcement">
        <name>ASN-Tag relationship announcement</name>
        <t>Corresponding to the tag generating, it also has two ways to announce the ASN-Tag binding relationship. The first is to deliver the generated tags and the second is to deliver the original SA.</t>
        <t>Thus, there must be a header format definition to transfer these tags and SA. In RISAV, it uses the header and payload formats defined in <xref target="RFC5996"/>. Meanwhile, there are some almost negligible changes to the formats. For the tag generation method, it MUST be to specify the initial state and initial state length of the state machine, the identifier of a state machine, state transition interval, length of generated Tag, and Tag. For the SA, they will transfer all these payloads in a secure channel between ACS and ASBRs, for instance, in ESP <xref target="RFC4303"/>. It is RECOMMENDED to transfer the tags rather than the SA for security and efficiency considerations. The initial state and its length can be specified at the Key Exchange Payload with nothing to be changed. The state machine identifier is the SPI value as the SPI value is uniquely in RISAV. The state transition interval and length of generated Tag should be negotiated by the pair ACS, which will need to allocate one SA attribute. The generated Tag will be sent from ACS to ASBR in a secure channel which MAY be, for example, ESP <xref target="RFC4303"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="data-plane">
      <name>Data Plane</name>
      <t>The functions of the data plane of RISAV include source address checking and tag processing.</t>
      <t>RISAV redesign the original AH format as shown in <xref target="fig2"/>.</t>
      <figure anchor="fig2">
        <name>RISAV AH Format.</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
                     1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header   |  Payload Len  |          RESERVED             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                 Security Parameters Index (SPI)               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     Sequence Number Field                     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length |  SIG Length   |           RESERVED            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                    Signature - SIG (variable)                 |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <dl>
        <dt>Prefix Length:</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>The prefix length in valid ROA matched the IP source address. It presents the valid length of the IP source address prefix.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>SIG Length:</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>The length of the variable signature. It is the octets in Signature.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>Signature:</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>The result of the authentication algorithm with the key.</t>
        </dd>
      </dl>
      <t>All the ASBRs of the AS are REQUIRED to enable RISAV. And RISAV can OPTIONAL cooperate with intra-domain SAV and access-layer SAV, such as <xref target="RFC8704"/> or SAVI <xref target="RFC7039"/>. Only when intra-domain or access-layer SAV, if deployed, check passed can the packet process and forward correctly. It uses SPI for destination ASBR to locate the SA uniquely when processing the AH header in RISAV.</t>
      <t>As defined in <xref target="RFC4301"/>, the Security Association Database (SAD) stores all the SAs. One data item in SAD includes an Authentication algorithm and corresponding key when AH is supported. The authentication algorithm could be HMAC-MD5, HMAC-SHA-1, or others. As authenticating the whole packet causes a heavy burden in the computation, RISAV defines that it only authenticates the IP source address, IP destination address, and the IP prefix length in ROA, SPI, and Sequence Number Field. The eventual signature is the hash of the 5-tuple before with the key/tag.</t>
      <t>When a packet arrives at the source ASBR, it will be checked with the destination address by this ASBR first. If the destination address is in the protection range of RISAV, the packet will be checked by the source address next. If the source address belongs to the AS in which the ASBR locates, the packet needs to be filled in the AH header.</t>
      <t>When a packet arrives at the destination ASBR, it will be checked the destination address and the source address orderly. If the destination belongs to the AS that the destination ASBR locates in and the source address seats in the RISAV protection area, the packet needs to be inspected with the AH header.</t>
      <section anchor="incremental-deployment">
        <name>Incremental deployment</name>
        <t>So far, IPsec is often used as a VPN which is a technology for private network access through public networks. In the final analysis, IPsec is a highly cost-effective ratio mechanism. Original IPsec AH needs to authenticate the whole constant part of a packet so that it needs to spend amounts of time finding and processing unchangeable fields in the packet. However, RISAV only needs to find a few changeless fields to authenticate the packet decreasing the cost dramatically.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-consideration">
      <name>Security Consideration</name>
      <section anchor="compatibility">
        <name>Compatibility</name>
        <t>When using RISAV, it WOULD be used at last when all other IPsec SA does not match. Such that, RISAV is comparable with the current IPsec Security Architecture. It SHOULD be guaranteed that the preference of RISAV is lower than other IPsec. So it may require the special SPI filled.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="key-guessing-and-cracking">
        <name>Key Guessing and Cracking</name>
        <t>For resisting label-based reply attacks, the eventual signature used in a packet is generated by the ASBR by hashing a few fields including the IP source address, IP destination address, and the IP prefix length in ROA, SPI, and Sequence Number Field. The attacker could guess the signature and crack that key using brute force. Nevertheless, it depends on the irreversibility of a hash function to prevent backstepping the key from the signature. Furthermore, to decrease such probability, the key used in generating the signature will be updated periodically.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-consideration">
      <name>IANA Consideration</name>
      <t>TBD.</t>
      <!-- # Acknowledgements -->
<!-- TBD. -->

</section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
          <date month="March" year="1997"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4301" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4301.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/>
          <author fullname="K. Seo" initials="K." surname="Seo"/>
          <date month="December" year="2005"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes an updated version of the "Security Architecture for IP", which is designed to provide security services for traffic at the IP layer.  This document obsoletes RFC 2401 (November 1998). [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4301"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4301"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4302" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4302.xml">
        <front>
          <title>IP Authentication Header</title>
          <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/>
          <date month="December" year="2005"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes an updated version of the IP Authentication Header (AH), which is designed to provide authentication services in IPv4 and IPv6.  This document obsoletes RFC 2402 (November 1998). [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4302"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4302"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4303" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4303.xml">
        <front>
          <title>IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)</title>
          <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/>
          <date month="December" year="2005"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes an updated version of the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) protocol, which is designed to provide a mix of security services in IPv4 and IPv6.  ESP is used to provide confidentiality, data origin authentication, connectionless integrity, an anti-replay service (a form of partial sequence integrity), and limited traffic flow confidentiality.  This document obsoletes RFC 2406 (November 1998). [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4303"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4303"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5210" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5210" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5210.xml">
        <front>
          <title>A Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) Testbed and Deployment Experience</title>
          <author fullname="J. Wu" initials="J." surname="Wu"/>
          <author fullname="J. Bi" initials="J." surname="Bi"/>
          <author fullname="X. Li" initials="X." surname="Li"/>
          <author fullname="G. Ren" initials="G." surname="Ren"/>
          <author fullname="K. Xu" initials="K." surname="Xu"/>
          <author fullname="M. Williams" initials="M." surname="Williams"/>
          <date month="June" year="2008"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Because the Internet forwards packets according to the IP destination address, packet forwarding typically takes place without inspection of the source address and malicious attacks have been launched using spoofed source addresses.  In an effort to enhance the Internet with IP source address validation, a prototype implementation of the IP Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) was created and an evaluation was conducted on an IPv6 network.  This document reports on the prototype implementation and the test results, as well as the lessons and insights gained from experimentation.  This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5210"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5210"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5635" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5635" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5635.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Remote Triggered Black Hole Filtering with Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF)</title>
          <author fullname="W. Kumari" initials="W." surname="Kumari"/>
          <author fullname="D. McPherson" initials="D." surname="McPherson"/>
          <date month="August" year="2009"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Remote Triggered Black Hole (RTBH) filtering is a popular and effective technique for the mitigation of denial-of-service attacks.  This document expands upon destination-based RTBH filtering by outlining a method to enable filtering by source address as well.  This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5635"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5635"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5905" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5905.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification</title>
          <author fullname="D. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills"/>
          <author fullname="J. Martin" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Martin"/>
          <author fullname="J. Burbank" initials="J." surname="Burbank"/>
          <author fullname="W. Kasch" initials="W." surname="Kasch"/>
          <date month="June" year="2010"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Time Protocol (NTP) is widely used to synchronize computer clocks in the Internet.  This document describes NTP version 4 (NTPv4), which is backwards compatible with NTP version 3 (NTPv3), described in RFC 1305, as well as previous versions of the protocol.  NTPv4 includes a modified protocol header to accommodate the Internet Protocol version 6 address family.  NTPv4 includes fundamental improvements in the mitigation and discipline algorithms that extend the potential accuracy to the tens of microseconds with modern workstations and fast LANs.  It includes a dynamic server discovery scheme, so that in many cases, specific server configuration is not required.  It corrects certain errors in the NTPv3 design and implementation and includes an optional extension mechanism. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5905"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5905"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5996" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5996" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5996.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)</title>
          <author fullname="C. Kaufman" initials="C." surname="Kaufman"/>
          <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
          <author fullname="Y. Nir" initials="Y." surname="Nir"/>
          <author fullname="P. Eronen" initials="P." surname="Eronen"/>
          <date month="September" year="2010"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes version 2 of the Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol.  IKE is a component of IPsec used for performing mutual authentication and establishing and maintaining Security Associations (SAs).  This document replaces and updates RFC 4306, and includes all of the clarifications from RFC 4718. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5996"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5996"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC6480" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6480.xml">
        <front>
          <title>An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing</title>
          <author fullname="M. Lepinski" initials="M." surname="Lepinski"/>
          <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/>
          <date month="February" year="2012"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes an architecture for an infrastructure to support improved security of Internet routing.  The foundation of this architecture is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) that represents the allocation hierarchy of IP address space and Autonomous System (AS) numbers; and a distributed repository system for storing and disseminating the data objects that comprise the RPKI, as well as other signed objects necessary for improved routing security.  As an initial application of this architecture, the document describes how a legitimate holder of IP address space can explicitly and verifiably authorize one or more ASes to originate routes to that address space.  Such verifiable authorizations could be used, for example, to more securely construct BGP route filters.  This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6480"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6480"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7039" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7039" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7039.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Framework</title>
          <author fullname="J. Wu" initials="J." surname="Wu"/>
          <author fullname="J. Bi" initials="J." surname="Bi"/>
          <author fullname="M. Bagnulo" initials="M." surname="Bagnulo"/>
          <author fullname="F. Baker" initials="F." surname="Baker"/>
          <author fullname="C. Vogt" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Vogt"/>
          <date month="October" year="2013"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) methods were developed to prevent nodes attached to the same IP link from spoofing each other's IP addresses, so as to complement ingress filtering with finer-grained, standardized IP source address validation.  This document is a framework document that describes and motivates the design of the SAVI methods.  Particular SAVI methods are described in other documents.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7039"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7039"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
          <date month="May" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications.  This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8209" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8209" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8209.xml">
        <front>
          <title>A Profile for BGPsec Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests</title>
          <author fullname="M. Reynolds" initials="M." surname="Reynolds"/>
          <author fullname="S. Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner"/>
          <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/>
          <date month="September" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates used to enable validation of Autonomous System (AS) paths in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as part of an extension to that protocol known as BGPsec.  BGP is the standard for inter-domain routing in the Internet; it is the "glue" that holds the Internet together.  BGPsec is being developed as one component of a solution that addresses the requirement to provide security for BGP.  The goal of BGPsec is to provide full AS path validation based on the use of strong cryptographic primitives.  The end entity (EE) certificates specified by this profile are issued to routers within an AS.  Each of these certificates is issued under a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Certification Authority (CA) certificate.  These CA certificates and EE certificates both contain the AS Resource extension.  An EE certificate of this type asserts that the router or routers holding the corresponding private key are authorized to emit secure route advertisements on behalf of the AS(es) specified in the certificate.  This document also profiles the format of certification requests and specifies Relying Party (RP) certificate path validation procedures for these EE certificates.  This document extends the RPKI; therefore, this document updates the RPKI Resource Certificates Profile (RFC 6487).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8209"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8209"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8704" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8704" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8704.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Enhanced Feasible-Path Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding</title>
          <author fullname="K. Sriram" initials="K." surname="Sriram"/>
          <author fullname="D. Montgomery" initials="D." surname="Montgomery"/>
          <author fullname="J. Haas" initials="J." surname="Haas"/>
          <date month="February" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document identifies a need for and proposes improvement of the unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) techniques (see RFC 3704) for detection and mitigation of source address spoofing (see BCP 38).  Strict uRPF is inflexible about directionality, the loose uRPF is oblivious to directionality, and the current feasible-path uRPF attempts to strike a balance between the two (see RFC 3704).  However, as shown in this document, the existing feasible-path uRPF still has shortcomings.  This document describes enhanced feasible-path uRPF (EFP-uRPF) techniques that are more flexible (in a meaningful way) about directionality than the feasible-path uRPF (RFC 3704).  The proposed EFP-uRPF methods aim to significantly reduce false positives regarding invalid detection in source address validation (SAV).  Hence, they can potentially alleviate ISPs' concerns about the possibility of disrupting service for their customers and encourage greater deployment of uRPF techniques.  This document updates RFC 3704.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="84"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8704"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8704"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
