FC-BGP Protocol Specification

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

1.2. Definitions, and Acronyms

The following terms are used with a specific meaning:¶

BGP neighbor:

Also just 'neighbor'. Two BGP speakers that communicate using the BGP protocols are neighbors. It can be divided into iBGP neighbor and eBGP neighbor.¶

BGP speaker:

A device, usually a router, exchanging routes with other BGP speakers using the BGP protocol.¶

BGP UPDATE:

The message is generated with several path attributes to advertise routes.¶

iBGP:

iBGP neighbor, internal BGP neighbor, or internal neighbor. Internal neighbors are in the same AS.¶

eBGP:

eBGP neighbor, external BGP neighbor, or external neighbor. External neighbors are in different ASs.¶

Router:

In this document, the router always refers to a BGP speaker.¶

In addition to the list above, the following terms are used in this document:¶

FC:

Forwarding Commitment, i.e., FC segment. It contains several fields and a digital signature to protect the current path.¶

FCList:

An ordered list of FC segments to protect the whole AS-Path in the BGP UPDATE message. The order of FCs follows the order of AS numbers in the AS-Path. All FC-BGP-enabled BGP speakers SHOULD add their FCs to the BGP UPDATE message.¶

FC path attribute:

The optional, transitive, extended length path attribute is defined in this document to obtain BGP security.¶

FC-BGP UPDATE:

A BGP UPDATE message carries the FC path attribute.¶

FC-BGP speaker:

A BGP speaker that enables the FC-BGP feature. It can generate, propagate, and validate FC-BGP UPDATE messages.¶

4.1. Generation

This part defines the generation of the FC path attribute and the FC segment. An FC-BGP speaker SHOULD generate a new FC segment or even a new FC path attribute when it propagates a route to its external neighbors. For internal neighbors, the FC path attribute in the BGP UPDATE message remains unchanged.¶

The FC-BGP speaker follows a specific process to create the FC path attribute for the ongoing UPDATE message. Firstly, it generates a new FC Segment containing the necessary information for the FC path. This new FC Segment is then added to the FCList of the outer format defined in Figure 1. It is important to note that if the FC-BGP speaker is not the origin AS and there is already an existing FC path attribute of the UPDATE message, it MUST prepend its new FC segment to the FCList of the existing FC path attribute like the insertion process of ASN in AS_PATH attribute. This allows the FC-BGP speaker to contribute to its own FC segment while maintaining the existing FC path information. Otherwise, if it is the source AS, the FC-BGP speaker generates the FC path attribute defined in Figure 1 and inserts it into the UPDATE message.¶

There are three AS numbers in one FC segment as Figure 2 shows. The populating of the Current AS number (CASN) within the FC segment is like the AS number in BGPsec, it MUST match the AS number in the Subject field of the RPKI router certificate that will be used to verify the FC segment constructed by this FC-BGP speaker (see Section 3.1.1 of [RFC8209] and [RFC6487]). The Previous AS number (PASN) is typically set to the AS number from which the UPDATE message receives. However, if the FC-BGP speaker is located in the origin AS, the PASN SHOULD be filled with 0. The Nexthop AS number (NASN) is set to the AS number of the peer to whom the route is advertised. So if there are several neighbors, the FC-BGP speaker should generate separate FCs for different neighbors. But it would never generate a new FC segment for the iBGP neighbor.¶

The Subject Key Identifier field (SKI) within the new FC segment is populated with the identifier found in the Subject Key Identifier extension of the RPKI router certificate associated with the FC-BGP speaker. This identifier serves as a crucial piece of information for recipients of the route advertisement. It enables them to identify the appropriate certificate to employ when verifying the signatures in FC segments attached to the route advertisement. This practice adheres to the guidelines outlined in [RFC8209].¶

Typically, the Flags field is set to 0.¶

A route server (RS) is a third-party brokering system that interconnects three or more BGP-speaking routers using eBGP in IXPs [RFC7947]. Typically, RS performs like a transit AS except that it does not insert its AS number to the AS_PATH attribute. The route server also can participate in the FC-BGP process. If the RS is an FC-BGP-enabled RS, it may choose to set the Flags-RS bit to 1 when it populates its FC segment. However, when the RS chooses to add its AS number to the AS_PATH attribute, the Flags-RS bit SHOULD be set to 0. If the RS is a non-FC-BGP RS, it propagates the FC-BGP UPDATE message directly. Anyway, the AS number of RS would be used in the FC segment no matter if it appears in the AS_PATH attribute.¶

Typically, the route server does not insert ASN into AS_PATH. Take Figure 3 as an example where AS A advertises a BGP UPDATE to AS C and RS connects AS A and AS B. When RS supports the FC-BGP mechanism, AS A adds its FC segment: FC(NULL, A, RS), RS adds its FC segment: FC(A, RS, B, Flags-RS), and AS B adds its FC segment: FC(RS, B, C). If RS does not support the FC-BGP mechanism, FC(A, RS, B, Flags-RS) is missed in FCList, which SHOULD be considered as a partial deployment scenario.¶

+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
|    A   | --> |   RS   | --> |    B   | --> |    C   |
+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+

AS Path Prepending is a traffic engineering mechanism in BGP to deprioritize a route or alternate path, which will prepend the local AS number multiple times to the AS_PATH attribute [ASPP]. To minimize unnecessary processing load during the validation of FC segments, an FC-BGP speaker SHOULD NOT generate multiple consecutive FC segments with the same AS number. Instead, the FC-BGP speaker SHOULD aim to produce a single FC segment once, even if the intention is to achieve the semantics of prepending the same AS number multiple times.¶

The Algorithm ID field is set to 1. FC-BGP only supports one algorithm suite in this document as BGPsec Algorithm defined in [RFC8208]. That is the signature algorithm used MUST be the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) with curve P-256 and the hash algorithm used MUST be SHA-256. If it transits from one algorithm suite to another, the FC-BGP speaker MUST place its router certificate in the RPKI repository first and then specify the Algorithm ID in the FC segment.¶

The Signature Length field is populated with the length (in octets) of the value in the Signature field.¶

The Signature field in the new FC segment is a variable length field. It contains a digital signature encapsulated in DER format that binds the prefix, its length, and triplet <PASN, CASN, NASN> to the RPKI router certificate corresponding to the FC-BGP speaker. The digital signature is computed as follows: Signature=ECDSA(SHA256(PASN, CASN, NASN, Prefix, Prefix Length))¶

The signatures within the FC segments of an FC-BGP UPDATE message ensure the protection of crucial information including the AS number of the neighbor involved in the message exchange. This information is explicitly included in the generated FC segment. Consequently, if an FC-BGP speaker intends to transmit an FC-BGP UPDATE message to multiple BGP neighbors, it MUST generate a distinct FC-BGP UPDATE message for each unique neighbor AS to whom the UPDATE message is being sent.¶

Indeed, an FC-BGP UPDATE message is REQUIRED to advertise a route to just one prefix. This is because if an FC-BGP speaker receives an UPDATE message containing multiple prefixes, it would be unable to construct a valid FC-BGP UPDATE message, including valid path signatures, with a subset of the received prefixes. To advertise routes to multiple prefixes, the FC-BGP speaker MUST generate individual FC-BGP UPDATE messages for each prefix. This ensures the proper construction of valid path signatures for each advertised prefix.¶

All FC-BGP UPDATE messages MUST conform to BGP's maximum message size. If the resulting message exceeds the maximum message size, then the guidelines in Section 9.2 of [RFC4271] MUST be followed.¶

4.2. Propagation

Any BGP speaker should propagate the optional transitive FC path attribute encapsulated in the FC-BGP UPDATE message, even though they do not support the FC-BGP feature. However, it is important to note that an FC-BGP speaker SHOULD NOT make any attestation regarding the validation state of the FC-BGP UPDATE message it receives. They MUST verify the FC path attribute themselves.¶

To incorporate or create a new FC segment for an FC-BGP UPDATE message using a specific algorithm suite, the FC-BGP speaker MUST possess an appropriate private key capable of generating signatures for that particular algorithm suite. Moreover, this private key MUST correspond to the public key found in a valid RPKI End Entity (EE) certificate. The AS number resource extension within this certificate should include the FC-BGP speaker's AS number as specified in [RFC8209]. It is worth noting that these new segments are only prepended to an FC-BGP UPDATE message when the FC-BGP speaker generates the UPDATE message for transmission to an external neighbor. In other words, this occurs when the AS number of the neighbor differs from the AS number of the FC-BGP speaker.¶

The RPKI allows the legitimate holder of IP address prefix(es) to issue a digitally signed object known as a Route Origin Authorization (ROA). This ROA authorizes a specific AS to originate routes for a particular set of prefixes [RFC6482]. It is anticipated that most Relying Parties (RPs) will combine FC-BGP with origin validation [RFC6483] and [RFC6811]. Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that an FC-BGP speaker only advertises a route for a given prefix in an FC-BGP UPDATE message if there is a valid ROA that authorizes the FC-BGP speaker's AS to originate routes for that specific prefix.¶

If an FC-BGP router receives a non-FC-BGP UPDATE message from an external neighbor, meaning that the origin BGP speaker does not support FC-BGP, the router processes the UPDATE message as a regular BGP UPDATE message typically. In this case, it SHOULD NOT add its own FC segment to the UPDATE message. On the other hand, when the FC-BGP speaker advertises routes belonging to its local AS and receives them from an internal neighbor, it MUST add its FC segment to the UPDATE message if it decides to propagate those routes. Furthermore, if the FC-BGP router receives an FC-BGP UPDATE message from a neighbor for a specific prefix and chooses to propagate that neighbor's route for the prefix, it MUST propagate the route as an FC-BGP UPDATE message containing the FC path attribute.¶

When an FC-BGP speaker sends an FC-BGP UPDATE message to an iBGP (internal BGP) neighbor, the process is straightforward. When the FC-BGP speaker originates a new route advertisement and sends it to an iBGP neighbor, it MUST NOT include the FC path attribute of the UPDATE message. In other words, the FC-BGP speaker omits the FC path attribute. Similarly, when an FC-BGP speaker decides to forward an FC-BGP UPDATE message to an iBGP neighbor, it MUST refrain from adding a new FC segment to the FC-BGP UPDATE message.¶

When an FC-BGP speaker receives an FC-BGP UPDATE message containing an FC path attribute (with one or more FC segments) from an (internal or external) neighbor, it may choose to propagate the route advertisement by sending it to its other (internal or external) neighbors. When sending the route advertisement to an internal FC-BGP-speaking neighbor, the FC path attribute SHALL NOT be modified. When sending the route advertisement to an external FC-BGP-speaking neighbor, the following procedures are used to form or update the FC path attribute.¶

4.3. Processing Instructions for AS Confederation Members

Members of AS Confederation [RFC5065] MUST additionally follow the instructions in this section for processing FC-BGP UPDATE messages.¶

When an FC-BGP speaker in an AS confederation receives an FC-BGP UPDATE message from a neighbor that is external to the confederation and chooses to propagate the UPDATE message within the confederation, it first adds an FC segment and the signature signed to its own Member-AS (i.e., the 'Current AS Number' is the FC-BGP speaker's Member-AS Number). In this internally modified UPDATE message, the newly added FC segment contains the public AS number (i.e., Confederation Identifier), and the segment's Confed_Segment flag is set to 1. The newly added signature is generated using a private key corresponding to the public AS number of the confederation. The FC-BGP speaker propagates the modified UPDATE message to its peers within the confederation. (Note: In this document, intra-Member-AS peering is regarded as iBGP, and inter-Member-AS peering is regarded as eBGP. The latter is also known as confederation-eBGP.)¶

Within a confederation, the verification of FC-BGP signatures added by other members of the confederation is optional. Note that if a confederation chooses not to verify digital signatures within the confederation, then FC-BGP is not able to provide any assurances about the integrity of the Member-AS Numbers placed in FC segments where the Confed_Segment flag is set to 1.¶

When a confederation member receives an FC-BGP UPDATE message from a peer within the confederation and propagates it to a peer outside the confederation, it needs to remove all of the FC segments added by confederation members when it removes all path segments of the AS_PATH with the type of AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET. To do this, the confederation members propagated the route outside the confederation the following:¶

1. Starting with the most recently added FC segment, remove FC segments whose Flags-CS bit is 1. Stop this process once an FC segment that has its Confed_Segment flags set to 0 is reached.¶

2. Add an FC segment containing, in the CASN field, the AS Confederation Identifier (the public AS number of the confederation). Note that all fields other than the CASN field are populated.¶

Finally, as discussed above, an AS confederation MAY optionally decide that its members will not verify digital signatures added by members. In such a confederation, when an FC-BGP speaker runs the algorithm in Section 5.2.1, the FC-BGP speaker, during the process of signature verifications, first checks whether the Confed_Segment flag in an FC segment is set to 1. If the flag is set to 1, the FC-BGP speaker skips the verification for the corresponding signature and immediately moves on to the next FC segment. It is an error when an FC-BGP speaker receives, from a neighbor who is not in the same AS confederation, an FC-BGP UPDATE message containing a Confed_Segment flag set to 1.¶

5.1. Overview

When receiving an FC-BGP UPDATE message from an external BGP neighbor carrying the FC path attribute, an FC-BGP speaker SHOULD first validate the message to determine the authenticity of the path information. Same as BGPsec, an FC-BGP speaker will wish to perform origin validation (see [RFC6483] and [RFC6811]) on an incoming FC-BGP UPDATE message, but such validation is independent of the validation described in this section.¶

After the validation, the FC-BGP speaker may want to send the FC-BGP UPDATE message to neighbors according to local route policies. Then It SHOULD update the FC path attributes and continue advertising the BGP route.¶

For the origin AS who launches the advertisement, the FC-BGP speaker only needs to generate the FC-BGP UPDATE message other than the validation.¶

The FC-BGP speaker stores the router certificates in the RPKI repository, and any changes in the RPKI state can impact the validity of the UPDATE messages. That means the validity of FC-BGP UPDATE messages relies on the current state of the RPKI repository. When an FC-BGP speaker becomes aware of a change in the RPKI state, such as through an RPKI validating cache using the RTR protocol (as specified in [RFC8210]), it is REQUIRED to rerun validation on all affected UPDATE messages stored in its Adj-RIB-In [RFC4271]. For instance, if a specific RPKI router certificate becomes invalid due to expiration or revocation, all FC-BGP UPDATE messages containing an FC segment with an SKI matching the SKI in the affected certificate must be reassessed to determine their current validity. If the reassessment reveals a change in the validity state of an UPDATE message, the FC-BGP speaker, depending on its local policy, SHOULD need to rerun the best path selection process. This allows for the appropriate handling of the updated information and ensures that the most valid and suitable paths are chosen for routing purposes.¶

5.2. Validation

When verifying the authenticity of an FC-BGP UPDATE message, information from the RPKI router certificates is utilized. The RPKI router certificates provide the data including the triplet <AS Number, Public Key, Subject Key Identifier> to verify the AS_PATH and FC path attributes. As a prerequisite, the recipient SHOULD have access to these RPKI router certificates.¶

Note that the FC-BGP speaker could perform the validation of RPKI router certificates on its own and extract the required data, or it could receive the same data from a trusted cache that performs RPKI validation on behalf of (some set of) FC-BGP speakers. (For example, the trusted cache could deliver the necessary validity information to the FC-BGP speaker by using the Router Key PDU (Protocol Data Unit) for the RPKI-Router protocol [RFC8210].)¶

The recipient validates an FC-BGP UPDATE message containing the FC path attribute and obtains one result of two states: 'Valid' and 'Not Valid'. We will describe the validation procedure in Section 5.2.1 in this document. The validation result will be used at BGP route selection, thus it will be discussed at Section 6.4.¶

As the FC-BGP UPDATE message generates at the eBGP router, the FC-BGP validation needs only to be performed at the eBGP router. The iBGP route plays a crucial role in the FC-BGP UPDATE message propagation and distribution. The function of iBGP is to convey the validation status of an FC-BGP UPDATE message from an ingress edge router to an egress edge router within an AS. The specific mechanisms used to convey the validation status can vary depending on the implementation and local policies of the AS. By propagating this information through iBGP, the eBGP router, and other routers within the AS, can be aware of the validation status of the FC-BGP UPDATE messages and make routing decisions accordingly. As stated in Section 4, when an FC-BGP speaker decides to forward a syntactically correct FC-BGP UPDATE message, it is RECOMMENDED to do so while preserving the FC path attribute. This recommendation applies regardless of the validation state of the UPDATE message.¶

Ultimately, the decision to forward the FC-BGP UPDATE message with the FC path intact and the choice to perform independent validation at the egress router are both determined by local policies implemented within the AS. Note that the decision to perform validation on the received FC-BGP UPDATE message is left to the discretion of the egress router, which is the router receiving the message within its own AS. The egress router has the freedom to choose whether or not it wants to independently validate the FC path attribute based on its local policy, even if the FC path attribute has already been validated by the ingress router. This additional validation performed at the egress router helps ensure the integrity and security of the received FC-BGP UPDATE message.¶

6.1. Algorithms and Extensibility

The content of Algorithm Suite Considerations defined in Section 6.1 of [RFC8205] and content of Considerations for the SKI Size defined in Section 6.2 of [RFC8205] are indeed applicable in this context of FC-BGP.¶

But the algorithm suite transition in FC-BGP is straightforward: As each FC segment has an Algorithm ID field, just populate this field with a feasible and consensus value that all FC-BGP speaker supports when transitioning.¶

6.2. Speedup and Early Termination of Signature Verification

It is advantageous for an implementation to establish a parallel verification process for FC-BGP if the router's processor supports such operations. As each FC segment contains the integral data that needs to be verified, parallel verification can significantly enhance the efficiency and speed of the validation process. By utilizing parallel processing capabilities, an implementation can simultaneously verify multiple FC segments, thereby reducing the overall verification time. This is particularly beneficial in scenarios where the FC path attribute contains a substantial number of segments or in high-traffic networks with a large volume of FC-BGP UPDATE messages. Implementations that leverage parallel verification take advantage of the processing power available in modern router processors. This allows for more efficient and faster verification, ensuring that the FC-BGP UPDATE messages are promptly validated and routed accordingly.¶

However, it's important to note that the feasibility of parallel verification depends on the specific capabilities and constraints of the router's processor. Implementations SHOULD consider factors such as available resources, concurrency limitations, and the impact on overall system performance when implementing parallel verification processes. Overall, setting up a parallel verification process for FC-BGP, if feasible, can contribute to improved performance and responsiveness in validating FC segments, further enhancing the reliability and efficiency of the FC-BGP protocol.¶

During the validation of an FC-BGP UPDATE message, route processor performance speedup can be achieved by incorporating the following observations. These observations provide valuable insights into optimizing the validation process and reducing the workload on the route processor. One of the key observations is that an FC-BGP UPDATE message is considered 'Valid' only if all FC segments are marked as 'Valid' in the validation steps. This means that if an FC segment is marked as 'Not Valid', there is no need to continue verifying the remaining unverified FC segments. This optimization can significantly reduce the processing time and workload on the route processor. Furthermore, when the FC-BGP UPDATE message is selected as the best path, the FC-BGP speaker appends its own FC segment, including the appropriate signature generated with the corresponding algorithm, to the FC path attribute. This ensures that the updated path is propagated correctly.¶

Additionally, an FC-BGP UPDATE message is considered as 'Not Valid' if at least one signature in each of the FC segments is invalid. Thus, the verification process for an FC segment can terminate early as soon as the first invalid signature is encountered. There is no need to continue validating the remaining signatures in that FC segment.¶

By incorporating these observations, an FC-BGP implementation can achieve significant performance improvements and reduce the computational burden on the route processor. It allows for more efficient validation of FC-BGP UPDATE messages, ensuring the integrity and security of the routing information while maximizing system resources.¶

6.3. Defering Validation

When an FC-BGP speaker receives an exceptionally large number of UPDATE messages simultaneously, though it can use parallel verification to speed up the validation, it can be beneficial to defer the validation of incoming FC-BGP UPDATE messages. The decision to defer the validation process may depend on the local policy of the FC-BGP speaker, taking into account factors such as available resources and system load.¶

By deferring the validation of these messages, the FC-BGP speaker can prioritize its processing power and resources to handle other critical tasks or ongoing operations. Deferring the validation allows the FC-BGP speaker to temporarily postpone the resource-intensive validation process until it can allocate sufficient resources to handle the influx of incoming messages effectively.¶

The implementation SHOULD provide visibility to the operator regarding the deferment of validation and the status of the deferred messages. This visibility enables the operator to have awareness of the deferred messages and understand the current state of the system. This information is crucial for monitoring and managing the FC-BGP speaker's behavior, ensuring that the operator can make informed decisions based on the system's status.¶

6.4. BGP Route Selection

While FC-BGP does modify the BGP route selection result, it is not the primary intention of FC-BGP to modify the BGP route selection process itself. Instead, FC-BGP focuses on providing an additional layer of validation and verification for BGP UPDATE messages.¶

However, the handling of FC-BGP validation states, as well as the integration of FC-BGP with the BGP route selection, is indeed a matter of local policy. FC-BGP implementations SHOULD provide mechanisms that allow operators to define and configure their own local policies on a per-session basis. This flexibility enables operators to customize the behavior of FC-BGP based on their specific requirements and preferences.¶

By allowing operators to set local policies, FC-BGP implementations empower them to control how the validation status of FC-BGP UPDATE messages influences the BGP route selection process. Operators may choose to treat FC-BGP validation status differently for UPDATE messages received over different BGP sessions, based on their network's needs and security considerations.¶

To ensure consistency and interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED that FC-BGP implementations treat the priority of FC-BGP UPDATE messages at the same level as Route Origin Validation (ROV). This means that the validation status of FC-BGP UPDATE messages should be considered alongside other route selection criteria, such as path attributes, AS path length, and local preference.¶

6.5. Non-deterministic Signature Algorithms

The non-deterministic nature of many signature algorithms can introduce variations in the signatures produced, even when signing the same data with the same key. This means that if an FC-BGP router receives two FC-BGP UPDATE messages from the same peer, for the same prefix, with the same FC path attribute except the signature fields, the signature fields MAY differ when using a non-deterministic signature algorithm. Note that if the sender caches and reuses the previous signature, the two sets of signature fields will not differ. This applies specifically to deterministic signature algorithms, where the signature fields between the two UPDATE messages MUST be identical.¶

Considering these observations, an FC-BGP implementation MAY incorporate optimizations in the UPDATE validation processing. These optimizations can take advantage of the non-deterministic nature of signature algorithms to reduce computational overhead. For example, if an FC-BGP router has already validated an FC segment and its corresponding signature in a previous UPDATE message from the same peer, it may choose to cache and reuse the previous validation result. This can help avoid redundant computations for subsequent UPDATE messages with the same FC path attribute and SKIs, as long as the sender does not generate new signatures.¶

By incorporating such optimizations, an implementation can reduce the computational load and processing time needed for validating FC-BGP UPDATE messages. However, it is important to ensure that the implementation adheres to the requirements and specifications of the FC-BGP protocol while considering the performance benefits of these optimizations.¶

6.6. Private AS Numbers

The process of Private AS Numbers used in BGPsec speaker defined in Section 7.5. of [RFC8205] also applies here.¶

6.7. Robustness Considerations for Accessing RPKI Data

As there is a mature RPKI to Router protocol [RFC8210], the implementation is REQUIRED to use this protocol to access the RPKI data. The content defined in Section 7.6. of [RFC8205] also applies here.¶

6.8. Graceful Restart

During Graceful Restart (GR), restarting and receiving FC-BGP speakers MUST follow the procedures specified in [RFC4724] for restarting and receiving BGP speakers, respectively. In particular, the behavior of retaining the forwarding state for the routes in the Loc-RIB [RFC4271] and marking them as stale, as well as not differentiating between stale routing information and other information during forwarding, will be the same as the behavior specified in [RFC4724].¶

6.9. Robustness of Secret Random Number in ECDSA

As both FC-BGP and BGPsec use ECDSA, the content of Robustness of Secret Random Number in ECDSA defined in Section 7.8. of [RFC8205] applies here.¶

6.10. Incremental/Partial Deployment Considerations

The core difference between FC-BGP and BGPsec is that BGPsec is a path-level authentication approach whereas FC-BGP is a pathlet-driven authentication approach.¶

In design, FC-BGP does not modify the AS_PATH attribute. It defines a new transitive path attribute to transport the FC segments so that the legacy ASes can forward this attribute to its peers. Thus, FC-BGP is natively compatible with the BGP and supports partial deployment. It differs from BGPsec which replaces the AS_PATH attribute with a new Secure_Path information of BGPsec_Path attribute.¶

As for incremental/partial deployment considerations, in Section 5.1.1 of [ARXIV], we have proved that the adversary cannot forge a valid AS path when FC-BGP is universally deployed. Section 5.1.2 of [ARXIV] analyzes the benefits of FC-BGP in case of partial deployment. The results show that FC-BGP provides more benefits than BGPsec in partial deployment. As a result, attackers are forced to pretend to be at least two hops away from the destination AS, which reduces the probability of successful path hijacks.¶

7.1. Security Guarantees

TBD.¶

When FC-BGP is used in conjunction with origin validation, the following security guarantees can be achieved:¶

• The source AS in a route announcement is authorized.¶

• FC-BGP speakers on the AS-Path are authorized to propagate the route announcements.¶

• The forwarding path of packets is consistent with the routing path announced by the FC-BGP speakers.¶

FC-BGP is designed to enhance the security of control plane routing in the Internet at the network layer. Specifically, FC-BGP allows an AS to independently prove its BGP routing decisions with publicly verifiable cryptography commitments, based on which any on-path AS can verify the authenticity of a BGP path. More crucially, the above security guarantees offered by FC-BGP are not binary, i.e., secure or non-secure. Instead, the security benefits are strictly monotonically increasing as the deployment rate of FC-BGP (i.e., the percentage of ASs that are upgraded to support FC-BGP) increases.¶

7.2. Mitigation of Denial-of-Service Attacks

The FC-BGP UPDATE process, due to its involvement in numerous cryptographic operations, becomes vulnerable to Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks targeting FC-BGP speakers. This section addresses the mitigation strategies tailored for the specific DoS threats the FC-BGP protocol poses. To prevent the Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks faced by the FC-BGP control plane mechanism, there is no need to put in more effort than BGPsec.¶

To reduce the impact of DoS attacks, FC-BGP speakers SHOULD employ an UPDATE validation algorithm that prioritizes inexpensive checks (such as syntax checks) before proceeding to more resource-intensive operations (like signature verification). The validation algorithm described in Section 5.2.1 is designed to sequence checks in order of likely expense, starting with less costly operations. However, the actual cost of executing these validation steps can vary across different implementations, and the algorithm in Section 5.2.1 may not offer the optimal level of DoS protection for all cases.¶

Moreover, the transmission of UPDATE messages with the FC path attribute, which entails a multitude of signatures, is a potential vector for denial-of-service attacks. To counter this, implementations of the validation algorithm must cease signature verification immediately upon encountering an invalid signature. This prevents prolonged sequences of invalid signatures from being exploited for DoS purposes. Additionally, implementations can further mitigate such attacks by limiting validation efforts to only those UPDATE messages that, if found to be valid, would be chosen as the best path. In other words, if an UPDATE message includes a route that would be disqualified by the best path selection process for some reason (such as an excessively long AS path), it is OPTIONALLY to determine its FC-BGP validity status.¶

7.3. Route Server

When the Route Server populates its FC Segment into the FC path attribute, it is secure as the path is fully deployed.¶

When the Route Server fails to insert FC Segment, no matter whether its ASN is listed in the AS path, it is considered a partial deployment which poses a risk of path forgery.¶

7.4. Additional Security Considerations

9.1. Normative References

[RFC4271]

Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4271>.

[RFC4724]

Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y. Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724, DOI 10.17487/RFC4724, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4724>.

[RFC5656]

Stebila, D. and J. Green, "Elliptic Curve Algorithm Integration in the Secure Shell Transport Layer", RFC 5656, DOI 10.17487/RFC5656, December 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5656>.

[RFC6480]

Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6480>.

[RFC6482]

Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6482>.

[RFC6483]

Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Validation of Route Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6483, DOI 10.17487/RFC6483, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6483>.

[RFC6487]

Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, DOI 10.17487/RFC6487, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6487>.

[RFC6793]

Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6793>.

[RFC7606]

Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7606>.

[RFC7947]

Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker, "Internet Exchange BGP Route Server", RFC 7947, DOI 10.17487/RFC7947, September 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947>.

[RFC8205]

Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8205>.

[RFC8208]

Turner, S. and O. Borchert, "BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, and Signature Formats", RFC 8208, DOI 10.17487/RFC8208, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8208>.

[RFC8209]

Reynolds, M., Turner, S., and S. Kent, "A Profile for BGPsec Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests", RFC 8209, DOI 10.17487/RFC8209, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8209>.

[RFC8210]

Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1", RFC 8210, DOI 10.17487/RFC8210, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8210>.

[RFC8635]

Bush, R., Turner, S., and K. Patel, "Router Keying for BGPsec", RFC 8635, DOI 10.17487/RFC8635, August 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8635>.

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

9.2. Informative References

[RFC4272]

Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4272>.

[RFC5065]

Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065, DOI 10.17487/RFC5065, August 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5065>.

[RFC5492]

Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5492>.

[RFC6472]

Kumari, W. and K. Sriram, "Recommendation for Not Using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP", BCP 172, RFC 6472, DOI 10.17487/RFC6472, December 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6472>.

[RFC6811]

Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6811>.

[RFC7132]

Kent, S. and A. Chi, "Threat Model for BGP Path Security", RFC 7132, DOI 10.17487/RFC7132, February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7132>.

[RFC7607]

Kumari, W., Bush, R., Schiller, H., and K. Patel, "Codification of AS 0 Processing", RFC 7607, DOI 10.17487/RFC7607, August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7607>.

[RFC8416]

Ma, D., Mandelberg, D., and T. Bruijnzeels, "Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI (SLURM)", RFC 8416, DOI 10.17487/RFC8416, August 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8416>.

[ASPP]

McBride, M., Madory, D., Tantsura, J., Raszuk, R., Li, H., Heitz, J., and G. S. Mishra, "AS Path Prepending", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending-13, 20 June 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending-13>.

[ARXIV]

"Secure Inter-domain Routing and Forwarding via Verifiable Forwarding Commitments", September 2023, <https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13271>.