





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      T. Manderson
Request for Comments: 6907                                         ICANN
Category: Informational                                        K. Sriram
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                  US NIST
                                                                R. White
                                                                Verisign
                                                              March 2013


                     Use Cases and Interpretations
          of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects
                    for Issuers and Relying Parties

Abstract

   This document describes a number of use cases together with
   directions and interpretations for organizations and relying parties
   when creating or encountering Resource Public Key Infrastructure
   (RPKI) object scenarios in the public RPKI.  All of these items are
   discussed here in relation to the Internet routing system.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6907.















Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
      1.1. Terminology ................................................4
      1.2. Documentation Prefixes .....................................4
      1.3. Definitions ................................................4
   2. Overview ........................................................6
      2.1. General Interpretation of RPKI Object Semantics ............6
   3. Origination Use Cases ...........................................7
      3.1. Single Announcement ........................................8
      3.2. Aggregate with a More Specific .............................8
      3.3. Aggregate with a More Specific from a Different ASN ........9
      3.4. Sub-Allocation to a Multi-Homed Customer ...................9
      3.5. Restriction of a New Allocation ...........................10
      3.6. Restriction of New ASN ....................................11
      3.7. Restriction of a Part of an Allocation ....................11
      3.8. Restriction of Prefix Length ..............................12
      3.9. Restriction of Sub-Allocation Prefix Length ...............13
      3.10. Aggregation and Origination by an Upstream Provider ......15
      3.11. Rogue Aggregation and Origination by an Upstream
            Provider .................................................16
   4. Adjacency or Path Validation Use Cases .........................17
   5. Partial Deployment Use Cases ...................................18
      5.1. Parent Does Not Participate in RPKI .......................18
      5.2. Only Some Children Participate in RPKI ....................18
      5.3. Grandchild Does Not Participate in RPKI ...................19
   6. Transfer Use Cases .............................................20
      6.1. Transfer of In-Use Prefix and Autonomous System Number ....20
      6.2. Transfer of In-Use Prefix .................................21
      6.3. Transfer of Unused Prefix .................................22






Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   7. Relying Party Use Cases ........................................22
      7.1. Prefix-Origin Validation Use Cases ........................22
           7.1.1. Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Satisfied,
                  and AS Match .......................................23
           7.1.2. Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Exceeded,
                  and AS Match .......................................23
           7.1.3. Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Satisfied,
                  and AS Mismatch ....................................23
           7.1.4. Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Exceeded,
                  and AS Mismatch ....................................24
           7.1.5. Covering ROA Prefix Not Found ......................24
           7.1.6. Covering ROA Prefix and the ROA Is an AS 0 ROA .....24
           7.1.7. Covering ROA Prefix Not Found but ROAs
                  Exist for a Covering Set of More Specifics .........25
           7.1.8. AS_SET in Route and Covering ROA Prefix Not Found ..25
           7.1.9. Singleton AS in AS_SET (in the Route),
                  Covering ROA Prefix, and AS Match ..................26
           7.1.10. Singleton AS in AS_SET (in the Route),
                   Covering ROA Prefix, and AS Mismatch ..............26
           7.1.11. Multiple ASs in AS_SET (in the Route) and
                   Covering ROA Prefix ...............................26
           7.1.12. Multiple ASs in AS_SET (in the Route) and
                   ROAs Exist for a Covering Set of More Specifics ...27
      7.2. ROA Expiry or Receipt of a CRL Revoking a ROA .............27
           7.2.1. ROA of Parent Prefix Is Revoked ....................27
           7.2.2. ROA of Prefix Revoked while Parent Prefix
                  Has Covering ROA Prefix with Different ASN .........28
           7.2.3. ROA of Prefix Revoked while That of Parent
                  Prefix Prevails ....................................28
           7.2.4. ROA of Grandparent Prefix Revoked while
                  That of Parent Prefix Prevails .....................28
           7.2.5. Expiry of ROA of Parent Prefix .....................29
           7.2.6. Expiry of ROA of Prefix while Parent Prefix
                  Has Covering ROA with Different ASN ................29
           7.2.7. Expiry of ROA of Prefix while That of
                  Parent Prefix Prevails .............................29
           7.2.8. Expiry of ROA of Grandparent Prefix while
                  That of Parent Prefix Prevails .....................29
   8. Acknowledgements ...............................................30
   9. Security Considerations ........................................30
   10. References ....................................................30
      10.1. Normative References .....................................30
      10.2. Informative References ...................................30








Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


1.  Introduction

   This document describes a number of use cases together with
   directions and interpretations for organizations and relying parties
   when creating or encountering Resource Public Key Infrastructure
   (RPKI) object scenarios in the public RPKI.  All of these items are
   discussed here in relation to the Internet routing system.

1.1.  Terminology

   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms and concepts
   described in "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
   and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile" [RFC5280], "A Profile
   for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates" [RFC6487], "X.509 Extensions
   for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers" [RFC3779], "A Profile for Route
   Origin Authorizations (ROAs)" [RFC6482], "Validation of Route
   Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key Infrastructure
   (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)" [RFC6483], and "BGP
   Prefix Origin Validation" [RFC6811].

1.2.  Documentation Prefixes

   The documentation prefixes recommended in [RFC5737] are insufficient
   for use as example prefixes in this document.  Therefore, this
   document uses RFC 1918 [RFC1918] address space for constructing
   example prefixes.

1.3.  Definitions

   For all of the use cases in this document, it is assumed that RPKI
   objects (e.g., resource certificates, ROAs) validate in accordance
   with [RFC6487] and [RFC6480].  In other words, we assume that
   corrupted RPKI objects, if any, have been detected and eliminated.

   The following definitions are in use in this document.  Some of these
   definitions are reused or adapted from [RFC6811] with authors'
   permission.

   Resource:  An IP address prefix (simply called prefix or subnet) or
      an Autonomous System Number (ASN).

   Allocation:  A set of resources provided to an entity or organization
      for its use.

   Sub-allocation:  A set of resources subordinate to an allocation
      assigned to another entity or organization.





Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   Prefix:  A prefix consists of a pair (IP address, prefix length),
      interpreted as is customary (see [RFC4632]).

   Route:  Data derived from a received BGP update, as defined in
      [RFC4271], Section 1.1.  The route includes one prefix and an
      AS_PATH, among other things.

   ROA:  Route Origin Authorization (ROA) is an RPKI object signed by a
      prefix holder authorizing origination of said prefix from an
      origin AS specified in said ROA.

   AS 0 ROA:  A ROA with ASN value 0 (zero) in the AS ID field.  AS 0
      ROA is an attestation by a prefix holder that the prefix described
      in the ROA, and any more specific prefix, should not be used in a
      routing context [RFC6483].

   ROA prefix:  The prefix from a ROA.

   ROA ASN:  The origin ASN from a ROA.

   maxLength:  The maximum length up to which more specific prefixes of
      a ROA prefix may be originated from the corresponding ROA ASN.
      The maxLength is specified in the ROA.

   Route prefix:  A prefix derived from a route.

   Route origin ASN:  The origin AS number derived from a route.  The
      origin AS number is:

      o  the rightmost AS in the final segment of the AS_PATH attribute
         in the route if that segment is of type AS_SEQUENCE, or

      o  the BGP speaker's own AS number if that segment is of type
         AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET or if the AS_PATH is empty,
         or

      o  the distinguished value "NONE" if the final segment of the
         AS_PATH attribute is of any other type.

   Covering ROA prefix:  A ROA prefix that is an exact match or a less
      specific when compared to the route prefix under consideration.
      In other words, the route prefix is said to have a covering ROA
      prefix when there exists a ROA such that the ROA prefix length is
      less than or equal to the route prefix length and the ROA prefix
      address matches the route prefix address for all bits specified by
      the ROA prefix length.





Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   Covering ROA:  If a ROA contains a covering ROA prefix for a route
      prefix under consideration, then the ROA is said to be a covering
      ROA for the route prefix.

   No covering ROA:  No covering ROA exists for a route prefix under
      consideration.

   No other covering ROA:  No other covering ROA exists (besides what is
      (are) already cited) for a route prefix under consideration.

   Multi-homed prefix or subnet:  A prefix (i.e., subnet) for which a
      route is originated through two or more autonomous systems.

   Matched:  A route's {prefix, origin AS} pair is said to be matched by
      a ROA when the route prefix has a covering ROA, and in addition,
      the route prefix length is less than or equal to the maxLength in
      said covering ROA and the route origin ASN is equal to the ASN in
      said covering ROA.

   Given these definitions, any given BGP route will be found to have
   one of the following "validation states":

   o  NotFound: The route prefix has no covering ROA.

   o  Valid: The route's {prefix, origin AS} pair is matched by at least
      one ROA.

   o  Invalid: The route prefix has at least one covering ROA and the
      route's {prefix, origin AS} pair is not matched by any ROA.

   It is to be noted that no ROA can have the value "NONE" as its ROA
   ASN.  Thus, a route whose origin ASN is "NONE" cannot be matched by
   any ROA.  Similarly, no valid route can have an origin ASN of zero
   [AS0-PROC].  Thus, no route can be matched by a ROA whose ASN is zero
   (i.e., an AS 0 ROA) [RFC6483].

2.  Overview

2.1.  General Interpretation of RPKI Object Semantics

   In the interpretation of relying parties (RPs), or relying party
   routing software, it is important that a 'make before break'
   operational policy be applied.  In part, this means that an RP should
   implement a routing decision process where a route is assumed to be
   intended (i.e., considered unsuspicious) unless proven otherwise by
   the existence of a valid RPKI object that explicitly invalidates the
   route (see Section 7.1 for examples).  Also, especially in cases when
   a prefix is newly acquired by allocation/sub-allocation or due to



Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   prefix-ownership transfer, a ROA should be registered in RPKI prior
   to advertisement of the prefix in BGP.  This is highly recommended
   for the following reasons.  Observe that in the transfer case
   (considering a prefix transfer from Org A to Org B), even though Org
   A's resource cert would be revoked before issuing a resource cert to
   Org B, there may be some latency before all relying parties discard
   the previously received ROA of Org A for that prefix.  The latency
   may be due to CRL propagation delay in the RPKI system or due to
   periodic polling by RPs, etc.  Also, observe that in the
   sub-allocation case (from parent Org A to child Org B), there may be
   an existing ROA registered by Org A (with their own origin ASN) for a
   covering aggregate prefix relative to the prefix in consideration.
   If the new prefix owner (Org B) has not already registered their own
   ROA (i.e., ROA with their origin ASN), then the presence of a
   different covering ROA (i.e., one with a different origin ASN)
   belonging to Org A would result in invalid assessment for the route
   advertised by the new owner (Org B).  Thus, in both cases (transfer
   or sub-allocation), it is prudent for the new owner (Org B) to ensure
   that its route for the prefix will be valid by proactively issuing a
   ROA before advertising the route.  The ROA should be issued with
   sufficient lead time taking into consideration the RPKI propagation
   delays.

   As stated earlier in Section 1.3, for all of the use cases in this
   document, it is assumed that RPKI objects (e.g., resource
   certificates, ROAs) validate in accordance with [RFC6487] and
   [RFC6480].  In other words, we assume that corrupted RPKI objects, if
   any, have been detected and eliminated.

   While many of the examples provided here illustrate organizations
   using their own autonomous system numbers to originate routes, it
   should be recognized that a prefix holder need not necessarily be the
   holder of the autonomous system number used for the route
   origination.

3.  Origination Use Cases

   This section deals with the various use cases where an organization
   has Internet resources and will announce routes to the Internet.
   It is based on operational observations of the existing routing
   system.  In the following use cases, the phrase "relying parties
   interpret the route as intended" is generally meant to indicate that
   "relying parties interpret an announced route as having a valid
   origination AS".







Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


3.1.  Single Announcement

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix
   10.1.2.0/24.  It wishes to announce the /24 prefix from ASN 64496
   such that relying parties interpret the route as intended.

   The desired announcement (and organization) would be:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   | Organization |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.2.0/24     | AS 64496    |   Org A      |
      +----------------------------------------------+

   The issuing party should create a ROA containing the following:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.2.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

3.2.  Aggregate with a More Specific

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix
   10.1.0.0/16.  It wishes to announce the more specific prefix
   10.1.0.0/20 from ASN 64496 as well as the aggregate route such that
   relying parties interpret the routes as intended.

   The desired announcements (and organization) would be:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   | Organization |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |   Org A      |
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | AS 64496    |   Org A      |
      +----------------------------------------------+

   The issuing party should create a ROA containing the following:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      |          |-----------------------------------+
      |          | 10.1.0.0/20       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+




Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


3.3.  Aggregate with a More Specific from a Different ASN

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496 and ASN 64511) has been
   allocated the prefix 10.1.0.0/16.  It wishes to announce the more
   specific prefix 10.1.0.0/20 from ASN 64511 as well as the aggregate
   route from ASN 64496 such that relying parties interpret the routes
   as intended.

   The desired announcements (and organization) would be:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | AS 64511    |  Org A      |
      +---------------------------------------------+

   The issuing party should create ROAs containing the following:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64511    | 10.1.0.0/20       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

3.4.  Sub-Allocation to a Multi-Homed Customer

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix
   10.1.0.0/16; it wishes to announce the more specific prefix
   10.1.0.0/20 from ASN 64496.  It has further delegated 10.1.16.0/20 to
   a customer (Org B with ASN 64511) who is multi-homed and will
   originate the prefix route from ASN 64511.  ASN 64496 will also
   announce the aggregate route such that relying parties interpret the
   routes as intended.











Manderson, et al.             Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The desired announcements (and organizations) would be:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      | 10.1.16.0/20    | AS 64511    |  Org B      |
      +---------------------------------------------+

   The issuing party should create ROAs containing the following:

      Org A:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      |          |-----------------------------------+
      |          | 10.1.0.0/20       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org B:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64511    | 10.1.16.0/20      |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

3.5.  Restriction of a New Allocation

   An organization has recently been allocated the prefix 10.1.0.0/16.
   Its network deployment is not yet ready to announce the prefix and
   wishes to restrict all possible announcements of 10.1.0.0/16 and more
   specifics in routing using RPKI.

   The following announcements would be considered undesirable:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      | 10.1.17.0/24    | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      +---------------------------------------------+







Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The issuing party should create a ROA containing the following:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      |    0     | 10.1.0.0/16       |    32         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

   This is known as an AS 0 ROA [RFC6483].  Also, please see the
   definition and related comments in Section 1.3.

3.6.  Restriction of New ASN

   An organization has recently been allocated an additional ASN 64511.
   Its network deployment is not yet ready to use this ASN and wishes to
   restrict all possible uses of ASN 64511 using RPKI.

   The following announcement would be considered undesirable:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | ANY             | AS 64511    |  ANY        |
      +---------------------------------------------+

   It is currently not possible to restrict use of autonomous system
   numbers.

3.7.  Restriction of a Part of an Allocation

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix
   10.1.0.0/16.  Its network topology permits the announcement of
   10.1.0.0/17.  Org A wishes to restrict any possible announcement of
   10.1.128.0/17 or more specifics of that /17 using RPKI.

   The desired announcement (and organization) would be:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/17     | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      +---------------------------------------------+









Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The following announcements would be considered undesirable:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.128.0/17   | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      | 10.1.128.0/24   | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      +---------------------------------------------+

   The issuing party should create ROAs containing the following:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/17       |    17         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      |    0     | 10.1.128.0/17     |    32         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

3.8.  Restriction of Prefix Length

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix
   10.1.0.0/16; it wishes to announce the aggregate and any or all more
   specific prefixes up to and including a maximum length of /20, but
   never any more specific than a /20.

   Examples of the desired announcements (and organization) would be:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      | 10.1.0.0/17     | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      |     ...         | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      | 10.1.128.0/20   | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      +---------------------------------------------+











Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The following announcements would be considered undesirable:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/21     | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      | 10.1.0.0/22     | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      |     ...         | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      | 10.1.128.0/24   | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      +---------------------------------------------+

   The issuing party should create a ROA containing the following:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

3.9.  Restriction of Sub-Allocation Prefix Length

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix
   10.1.0.0/16.  It sub-allocates several /20 prefixes to its multi-
   homed customers: Org B with ASN 64501 and Org C with ASN 64499,
   respectively.  It wishes to restrict those customers from advertising
   any corresponding routes more specific than a /22.

   The desired announcements (and organizations) would be:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |  Org A      |
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | AS 64501    |  Org B      |
      | 10.1.128.0/20   | AS 64499    |  Org C      |
      | 10.1.4.0/22     | AS 64501    |  Org B      |
      +---------------------------------------------+














Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The following example announcements (and organizations) would be
   considered undesirable:

      +---------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization |
      +---------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/24     | AS 64501    |  Org B      |
      | 10.1.128.0/24   | AS 64499    |  Org C      |
      |  .....          | ...         | ...         |
      | 10.1.0.0/23     | ANY AS      |  ANY        |
      +---------------------------------------------+

   The issuing party (Org A) should create ROAs containing the
   following:

      For Org A:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      For Org B:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64501    | 10.1.0.0/20       |    22         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      For Org C:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64499    | 10.1.128.0/20     |    22         |
      +----------------------------------------------+
















Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


3.10.  Aggregation and Origination by an Upstream Provider

   Consider four organizations with the following resources, which were
   acquired independently from any transit provider.

      +-------------------------------------------------+
      | Organization     | ASN      |    Prefix         |
      +-------------------------------------------------+
      | Org A            | AS 64496 |  10.1.0.0/24      |
      | Org B            | AS 64505 |  10.1.3.0/24      |
      | Org C            | AS 64499 |  10.1.1.0/24      |
      | Org D            | AS 64511 |  10.1.2.0/24      |
      +-------------------------------------------------+

   These organizations share a common upstream provider Transit X
   (ASN 64497) that originates an aggregate of these prefixes with the
   permission of all four organizations.

   The desired announcements (and organizations) would be:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   | Organization |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/24     | AS 64496    |   Org A      |
      | 10.1.3.0/24     | AS 64505    |   Org B      |
      | 10.1.1.0/24     | AS 64499    |   Org C      |
      | 10.1.2.0/24     | AS 64511    |   Org D      |
      | 10.1.0.0/22     | AS 64497    |   Transit X  |
      +----------------------------------------------+

   It is currently not possible for an upstream provider to make a valid
   aggregate announcement of independent prefixes.  However, the issuing
   parties should create ROAs containing the following:

      Org A:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org B:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64505    | 10.1.3.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+




Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


      Org C:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64499    | 10.1.1.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org D:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64511    | 10.1.2.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

3.11.  Rogue Aggregation and Origination by an Upstream Provider

   Consider four organizations with the following resources that were
   acquired independently from any transit provider.

      +-------------------------------------------------+
      | Organization     | ASN      |    Prefix         |
      +-------------------------------------------------+
      | Org A            | AS 64496 |  10.1.0.0/24      |
      | Org B            | AS 64503 |  10.1.3.0/24      |
      | Org C            | AS 64499 |  10.1.1.0/24      |
      | Org D            | AS 64511 |  10.1.2.0/24      |
      +-------------------------------------------------+

   These organizations share a common upstream provider Transit X
   (ASN 64497) that originates an aggregate of these prefixes where
   possible.  In this situation, Org B (ASN 64503, 10.1.3.0/24) does not
   wish for its prefix to be aggregated by the upstream provider.

   The desired announcements (and organizations) would be:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   | Organization |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/24     | AS 64496    |   Org A      |
      | 10.1.3.0/24     | AS 64503    |   Org B      |
      | 10.1.1.0/24     | AS 64499    |   Org C      |
      | 10.1.2.0/24     | AS 64511    |   Org D      |
      | 10.1.0.0/23     | AS 64497    |   Transit X  |
      +----------------------------------------------+







Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The following announcement would be considered undesirable:

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   | Organization |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/22     | AS 64497    |   Transit X  |
      +----------------------------------------------+

   It is currently not possible for an upstream provider to make a valid
   aggregate announcement of independent prefixes.  However, the issuing
   parties should create ROAs containing the following:

      Org A:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org B:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64503    | 10.1.3.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org C:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64499    | 10.1.1.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org D:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64511    | 10.1.2.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

4.  Adjacency or Path Validation Use Cases

   Use cases pertaining to adjacency or path validation are beyond the
   scope of this document and would be addressed in a separate document.







Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


5.  Partial Deployment Use Cases

5.1.  Parent Does Not Participate in RPKI

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64511) is multi-homed and has been
   assigned the prefix 10.1.0.0/20 from its upstream (Transit X with
   ASN 64496).  Org A wishes to announce the prefix 10.1.0.0/20 from
   ASN 64511 to its other upstream(s).  Org A also wishes to create RPKI
   statements about the resource; however, Transit X (ASN 64496), which
   announces the aggregate 10.1.0.0/16, has not yet adopted RPKI.

   The desired announcements (and organization with RPKI adoption)
   would be:

      +----------------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization | RPKI |
      +----------------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | AS 64511    |  Org A      | Yes  |
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |  Transit X  | No   |
      +----------------------------------------------------+

   RPKI is strictly hierarchical; therefore, if Transit X does not
   participate in RPKI, Org A is unable to validly issue RPKI objects.

5.2.  Only Some Children Participate in RPKI

   An organization (Org A with ASN 64496) has been allocated the prefix
   10.1.0.0/16 and participates in RPKI; it wishes to announce the more
   specific prefix 10.1.0.0/20 from ASN 64496.  It has further delegated
   10.1.16.0/20 and 10.1.32.0/20 to customers Org B with ASN 64511 and
   Org C with ASN 64502 (respectively), who are multi-homed.  Org B
   (ASN 64511) does not participate in RPKI.  Org C (ASN 64502)
   participates in RPKI.

   The desired announcements (and organizations with RPKI adoption)
   would be:

      +----------------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization | RPKI |
      +----------------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |  Org A      | Yes  |
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | AS 64496    |  Org A      | Yes  |
      | 10.1.16.0/20    | AS 64511    |  Org B      | No   |
      | 10.1.32.0/20    | AS 64502    |  Org C      | Yes  |
      +----------------------------------------------------+






Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The issuing parties should create ROAs containing the following:

      Org A:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      |          | 10.1.0.0/20       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org A issues for Org B:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64511    | 10.1.16.0/20      |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org C:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64502    | 10.1.32.0/20      |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

5.3.  Grandchild Does Not Participate in RPKI

   Consider the previous example, with an extension by which Org B, who
   does not participate in RPKI, further allocates 10.1.17.0/24 to Org X
   with ASN 64505.  Org X does not participate in RPKI.

   The desired announcements (and organizations with RPKI adoption)
   would be:

      +----------------------------------------------------+
      | Prefix          | Origin AS   |Organization | RPKI |
      +----------------------------------------------------+
      | 10.1.0.0/16     | AS 64496    |  Org A      | Yes  |
      | 10.1.0.0/20     | AS 64496    |  Org A      | Yes  |
      | 10.1.16.0/20    | AS 64511    |  Org B      | No   |
      | 10.1.32.0/20    | AS 64502    |  Org C      | Yes  |
      | 10.1.17.0/24    | AS 64505    |  Org X      | No   |
      +----------------------------------------------------+








Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The issuing parties should create ROAs containing the following:

      Org A:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      |          | 10.1.0.0/20       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org A issues for Org B:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64511    | 10.1.16.0/20      |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org A issues for Org B's customer Org X:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64505    | 10.1.17.0/24      |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      Org C:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64502    | 10.1.32.0/20      |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

6.  Transfer Use Cases

   For transfer use cases, based on the preceding sections, it should be
   easy to deduce what new ROAs need to be created and what existing
   ROAs need to be maintained (or revoked).  The resource transfer and
   timing of revocation/creation of the ROAs need to be performed based
   on the make-before-break principle and using suitable Regional
   Internet Registry (RIR) procedures (see Section 2.1).

6.1.  Transfer of In-Use Prefix and Autonomous System Number

   Org A holds the resource 10.1.0.0/20, and it is currently in use and
   originated from AS 64496 with valid RPKI objects in place.  Org B has
   acquired both the prefix and ASN and desires an RPKI transfer on a
   particular date and time without adversely affecting the operational
   use of the resource.



Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The following RPKI objects would be created/revoked:

      For Org A, revoke the following ROA:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/20       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      For Org B, add the following ROA:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/20       |    20         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

6.2.  Transfer of In-Use Prefix

   Org A holds the resource 10.1.0.0/16, and it is currently in use and
   originated from AS 64496 with valid RPKI objects in place.  Org A has
   agreed to transfer the entire /16 address block to Org B and will no
   longer originate the prefix or more specifics of it.  Consequently,
   Org B desires an RPKI transfer of this resource on a particular date
   and time.  This prefix will be originated by AS 64511 as a result of
   this transfer.

   The following RPKI objects would be created/revoked:

      For Org A, revoke the following ROA:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      For Org B, add the following ROA when the
      resource certificate for 10.1.0.0/16 is issued
      to them (Org B):

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64511    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      +----------------------------------------------+







Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


6.3.  Transfer of Unused Prefix

   Org A holds the resources 10.1.0.0/16 and AS 64507 (with RPKI
   objects).  Org A currently announces 10.1.0.0/16 from AS 64507.
   Org B has acquired an unused portion (10.1.4.0/24) of the prefix from
   Org A and desires an RPKI transfer on a particular date and time.
   Org B will originate a route 10.1.4.0/24 from AS 64496.

   The following RPKI objects would be created/sustained:

      For Org A, leave the following ROA unchanged:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64507    | 10.1.0.0/16       |    16         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

      For Org B, add the following ROA when the
      resource certificate for 10.1.4.0/24 is issued
      to them (Org B):

      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.4.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

   Org A may optionally provide ROA coverage for Org B by creating the
   following ROA preceding the RPKI transfer.  The ROA itself is then
   naturally revoked when 10.1.4.0/24 is transferred to Org B's resource
   certificate.

      Org A adds the following ROA:
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | asID     | address           | maxLength     |
      +----------------------------------------------+
      | 64496    | 10.1.4.0/24       |    24         |
      +----------------------------------------------+

7.  Relying Party Use Cases

7.1.  Prefix-Origin Validation Use Cases

   These use cases try to systematically enumerate the situations a
   relying party may encounter while receiving a BGP update and making
   use of ROA information to interpret the validity of the prefix-origin
   information in the routes derived from the update.  We enumerate the
   situations or scenarios and include a recommendation for the expected



Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   outcome of prefix-origin validation.  For a description of prefix-
   origin validation algorithms, see [RFC6483] and [RFC6811].  We use
   the terms Valid, Invalid, and NotFound as defined in [RFC6811] and
   summarized earlier in Section 1.3.  Also see [RFC6472] for a
   recommendation to deprecate AS_SETs in BGP updates.  The use cases
   described here can be potentially used as test cases for testing and
   evaluation of prefix-origin validation in router implementations;
   see, for example, [BRITE].

7.1.1.  Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Satisfied, and AS Match

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/16, maxLength = 20, AS 64496}

   Route has {10.1.0.0/17, Origin = AS 64496}

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route is
      Valid.

   Comment:  The route prefix has a covering ROA prefix, and the route
      origin ASN matches the ROA ASN.  This is a straightforward prefix-
      origin validation use case; it follows from the primary intention
      of creation of the ROA by a prefix holder.

7.1.2.  Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Exceeded, and AS Match

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/16, maxLength = 20, AS 64496}

   Route has {10.1.0.0/22, Origin = AS 64496}

   No other covering ROA

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route is
      Invalid.

   Comment:  In this case, the maxLength specified in the ROA is
      exceeded by the route prefix.

7.1.3.  Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Satisfied, and AS Mismatch

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/16, maxLength = 24, AS 64496}

   Route has {10.1.88.0/24, Origin = AS 64511}

   No other covering ROA







Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route is
      Invalid.

   Comment:  In this case, an AS other than the one specified in the ROA
      is originating the route.  This may be a prefix or subprefix
      hijack situation.

7.1.4.  Covering ROA Prefix, maxLength Exceeded, and AS Mismatch

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/16, maxLength = 22, AS 64496}

   Route has {10.1.88.0/24, Origin = AS 64511}

   No other covering ROA

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route is
      Invalid.

   Comment:  In this case, the maxLength specified in the ROA is
      exceeded by the route prefix, and also an AS other than the one
      specified in the ROA is originating the route.  This may be a
      subprefix hijack situation.

7.1.5.  Covering ROA Prefix Not Found

   Route has {10.1.3.0/24, Origin = AS 64511}

   No covering ROA

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route's
      validation status is NotFound.

   Comment:  In this case, there is no covering ROA for the route
      prefix.  It could be a prefix or subprefix hijack situation, but
      this announcement does not contradict any existing ROA.  During
      partial deployment, there would be some legitimate prefix-origin
      announcements for which ROAs may not have been issued yet.

7.1.6.  Covering ROA Prefix and the ROA Is an AS 0 ROA

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/16, maxLength = 32, AS 0}

   Route has {10.1.5.0/24, Origin = AS 64511}

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route's
      validation status is Invalid.





Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   Comment:  An AS 0 ROA implies by definition that the prefix listed in
      it and all of the more specifics of that prefix should not be used
      in a routing context [RFC6483] [AS0-PROC].  Also, please see
      related comments in Section 1.3.

7.1.7.  Covering ROA Prefix Not Found but ROAs Exist for a Covering Set
        of More Specifics

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64496}

   ROA: {10.1.64.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64496}

   ROA: {10.1.128.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64496}

   ROA: {10.1.192.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64496}

   Route has {10.1.0.0/16, Origin = AS 64496}

   No covering ROA

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route's
      validation status is NotFound.

   Comment:  In this case, the route prefix is an aggregate (/16), and
      it turns out that there exist ROAs for more specifics (/18s) that,
      if combined, can help support validation of the announced prefix-
      origin pair.  But it is very hard in general to break up an
      announced prefix into constituent more specifics and check for ROA
      coverage for those more specifics, and hence this type of
      accommodation is not recommended.

7.1.8.  AS_SET in Route and Covering ROA Prefix Not Found

   Route has {10.1.0.0/16, AS_SET [AS 64496, AS 64497, AS 64498,
   AS 64499] appears in the rightmost position in the AS_PATH}

   No covering ROA

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route's
      validation status is NotFound.

   Comment:  An extremely small percentage (~0.1%) of external BGP
      (eBGP) updates are seen to have an AS_SET in them; this is known
      as proxy aggregation.  In this case, the route with the AS_SET
      does not conflict with any ROA (i.e., the route prefix has no
      covering ROA prefix).  Therefore, the route gets NotFound
      validation status.




Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


7.1.9.  Singleton AS in AS_SET (in the Route), Covering ROA Prefix, and
        AS Match

   Route has {10.1.0.0/24, AS_SET [AS 64496] appears in the rightmost
   position in the AS_PATH}

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24, AS 64496}

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route is
      Invalid.

   Comment:  In the spirit of [RFC6472], any route with an AS_SET in it
      should not be considered valid (by ROA-based validation).  If the
      route contains an AS_SET and a covering ROA prefix exists for the
      route prefix, then the route should get an Invalid status.
      (Note: AS match or mismatch consideration does not apply.)

7.1.10.  Singleton AS in AS_SET (in the Route), Covering ROA Prefix, and
         AS Mismatch

   Route has {10.1.0.0/24, AS_SET [AS 64496] appears in the rightmost
   position in the AS_PATH}

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24, AS 64511}

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route is
      Invalid.

   Comment:  If the route contains an AS_SET and a covering ROA prefix
      exists for the route prefix, then the route should get an Invalid
      status.  (Note: AS match or mismatch consideration does not
      apply.)

7.1.11.  Multiple ASs in AS_SET (in the Route) and Covering ROA Prefix

   Route has {10.1.0.0/22, AS_SET [AS 64496, AS 64497, AS 64498,
   AS 64499] appears in the rightmost position in the AS_PATH}

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24, AS 64509}

   No other covering ROA

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route is
      Invalid.

   Comment:  If the route contains an AS_SET and a covering ROA prefix
      exists for the route prefix, then the route should get an Invalid
      status.



Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


7.1.12.  Multiple ASs in AS_SET (in the Route) and ROAs Exist for a
         Covering Set of More Specifics

   ROA: {10.1.0.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64496}

   ROA: {10.1.64.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64497}

   ROA: {10.1.128.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64498}

   ROA: {10.1.192.0/18, maxLength = 20, AS 64499}

   Route has {10.1.0.0/16, AS_SET [AS 64496, AS 64497, AS 64498,
   AS 64499] appears in the rightmost position in the AS_PATH}

   No covering ROA

   Recommended RPKI prefix-origin validation interpretation:  Route's
      validation status is NotFound.

   Comment:  In this case, the aggregate of the prefixes in the ROAs is
      a covering prefix (i.e., exact match or less specific) relative to
      the route prefix.  The ASs in each of the contributing ROAs
      together form a set that matches the AS_SET in the route.  But it
      is very hard in general to break up an announced prefix into
      constituent more specifics and check for ROA coverage for those
      more specifics.  In any case, it may be noted once again that in
      the spirit of [RFC6472], any route with an AS_SET in it should not
      be considered valid (by ROA-based validation).  In fact, the route
      under consideration would have received an Invalid status if the
      route prefix had at least one covering ROA prefix.

7.2.  ROA Expiry or Receipt of a CRL Revoking a ROA

   Here we enumerate use cases corresponding to router actions when RPKI
   objects expire or are revoked.  In the cases that follow, the terms
   "expired ROA" or "revoked ROA" are shorthand and describe the expiry
   or revocation of the End Entity (EE) or resource certificate that
   causes a relying party to consider the corresponding ROA to have
   expired or been revoked, respectively.

7.2.1.  ROA of Parent Prefix Is Revoked

   A certificate revocation list (CRL) is received that reveals that the
   ROA {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} is revoked.  Further, a
   route exists in the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24
   originated from ASN 64496.  In the absence of said revoked ROA, no
   covering ROA prefix exists for the route prefix (i.e., 10.1.3.0/24).




Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route's validation status
   is NotFound.

7.2.2.  ROA of Prefix Revoked while Parent Prefix Has Covering ROA
        Prefix with Different ASN

   A CRL is received that reveals that the ROA {10.1.3.0/24,
   maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} is revoked.  Further, a route exists in
   the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24 originated from
   ASN 64496.  Additionally, a valid ROA exists for a parent prefix
   10.1.0.0/22, and said ROA is {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24,
   ASN 64511}.  No other covering ROA exists for the 10.1.3.0/24 prefix.

   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route is Invalid.

7.2.3.  ROA of Prefix Revoked while That of Parent Prefix Prevails

   A CRL is received that reveals that the ROA {10.1.3.0/24,
   maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} is revoked.  Further, a route exists in
   the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24 originated from
   ASN 64496.  Additionally, a valid ROA exists for a parent prefix
   10.1.0.0/22, and said ROA is {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24,
   ASN 64496}.

   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route is Valid.

   (Clarification: Perhaps the revocation of the ROA for prefix
   10.1.3.0/24 was initiated just to eliminate redundancy.)

7.2.4.  ROA of Grandparent Prefix Revoked while That of Parent Prefix
        Prevails

   A CRL is received that reveals that the ROA {10.1.0.0/20,
   maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} is revoked.  Further, a route exists in
   the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24 originated from
   ASN 64496.  Additionally, a valid ROA exists for a parent prefix
   10.1.0.0/22, and said ROA is {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24,
   ASN 64496}.

   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route is Valid.

   (Clarification: The ROA for less specific grandparent prefix
   10.1.0.0/20 was revoked or withdrawn.)








Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


7.2.5.  Expiry of ROA of Parent Prefix

   A scan of the ROA list reveals that the ROA {10.1.0.0/22,
   maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} has expired.  Further, a route exists in
   the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24 originated from
   ASN 64496.  In the absence of said expired ROA, no covering ROA
   prefix exists for the route prefix (i.e., 10.1.3.0/24).

   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route's validation status
   is NotFound.

7.2.6.  Expiry of ROA of Prefix while Parent Prefix Has Covering ROA
        with Different ASN

   A scan of the ROA list reveals that the ROA {10.1.3.0/24,
   maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} has expired.  Further, a route exists in
   the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24 originated from
   ASN 64496.  Additionally, a valid ROA exists for a parent prefix
   10.1.0.0/22, and said ROA is {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24,
   ASN 64511}.  No other covering ROA exists for the prefix (i.e.,
   10.1.3.0/24).

   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route is Invalid.

7.2.7.  Expiry of ROA of Prefix while That of Parent Prefix Prevails

   A scan of the ROA list reveals that the ROA {10.1.3.0/24,
   maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} has expired.  Further, a route exists in
   the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24 originated from
   ASN 64496.  Additionally, a valid ROA exists for a parent prefix
   10.1.0.0/22, and said ROA is {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24,
   ASN 64496}.

   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route is Valid.

7.2.8.  Expiry of ROA of Grandparent Prefix while That of Parent Prefix
        Prevails

   A scan of the ROA list reveals that the ROA {10.1.0.0/20,
   maxLength = 24, ASN 64496} has expired.  Further, a route exists in
   the Internet routing system for 10.1.3.0/24 originated from
   ASN 64496.  Additionally, a valid ROA exists for a parent prefix
   10.1.0.0/22, and said ROA is {10.1.0.0/22, maxLength = 24,
   ASN 64496}.

   The Relying Party interpretation would be: Route is Valid.





Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors are indebted to both Sandy Murphy and Sam Weiler for
   their guidance.  Further, the authors would like to thank Steve Kent,
   Warren Kumari, Randy Bush, Curtis Villamizar, and Danny McPherson for
   their technical insight and review.  The authors also wish to thank
   Elwyn Davies, Stephen Farrell, Barry Leiba, Stewart Bryant, Alexey
   Melnikov, and Russ Housley for their review and comments during the
   IESG review process.

9.  Security Considerations

   This memo requires no security considerations.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.

   [RFC6482]  Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
              Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, February 2012.

   [RFC6487]  Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
              X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487,
              February 2012.

10.2.  Informative References

   [AS0-PROC] Kumari, W., Bush, R., Schiller, H., and K. Patel,
              "Codification of AS 0 processing", Work in Progress,
              August 2012.

   [BRITE]    NIST, "BRITE - BGPSEC / RPKI Interoperability Test &
              Evaluation", Developed by the National Institute of
              Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Maryland,
              2011, <http://brite.antd.nist.gov/statics/about>.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC3779]  Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
              Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.



Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 6907           RPKI Use Cases and Interpretations         March 2013


   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC5737]  Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
              Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.

   [RFC6472]  Kumari, W. and K. Sriram, "Recommendation for Not Using
              AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP", BCP 172, RFC 6472,
              December 2011.

   [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, February 2012.

   [RFC6811]  Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
              Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811,
              January 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Terry Manderson
   ICANN

   EMail: terry.manderson@icann.org


   Kotikalapudi Sriram
   US NIST

   EMail: ksriram@nist.gov


   Russ White
   Verisign

   EMail: russ@riw.us








Manderson, et al.             Informational                    [Page 31]

