draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as-00.txt | draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as-01.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
INTERNET-DRAFT Danny McPherson | INTERNET-DRAFT Danny McPherson | |||
Ryan Donnelly | Ryan Donnelly | |||
Frank Scalzo | Frank Scalzo | |||
VeriSign, Inc. | Verisign, Inc. | |||
Expires: May 2011 November 15, 2010 | Expires: January 2012 July 2, 2011 | |||
Intended Status: Best Current Practice | Intended Status: Best Current Practice | |||
Unique Per-Node Origin ASNs for Globally Anycasted Services | Unique Per-Node Origin ASNs for Globally Anycasted Services | |||
<draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as-00.txt> | <draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as-01.txt> | |||
Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
Copyright (c) 2010 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 | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions | |||
Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) | Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) | |||
in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please | in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please | |||
review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and | review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and | |||
restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | |||
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License | extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License | |||
text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and | text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and | |||
are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD | are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD | |||
License. | License. | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 8 | skipping to change at page 2, line 7 | |||
or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html | http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html | |||
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (C) (2010) The IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document makes recommendations regarding the use of per-node | This document makes recommendations regarding the use of unique | |||
unique origin ASNs for globally anycasted critical infrastructure | origin autonomous system numbers per node for globally anycasted | |||
services in order to provide routing system discriminators for a | critical infrastructure services in order to provide routing system | |||
given anycasted prefix. Network managment and monitoring techniques, | discriminators for a given anycasted prefix. Network management and | |||
or other operational mechanisms may employ this new discriminator in | monitoring techniques, or other operational mechanisms may employ | |||
whatever manner fits their operating environment. | this new discriminator in whatever manner best accommodates their | |||
operating environment. | ||||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3. Recommendation for Unique Origin ASNs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. Recommendation for Unique Origin ASNs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4. Additional Recommendations for Globally Anycasted | 4. Additional Recommendations for Globally Anycasted | |||
Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
6. Deployment Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 6. Deployment Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
10. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 10. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
1. Terminology | 1. Terminology | |||
This document employs much of the following terminology, which was | This document employs much of the following terminology, which was | |||
taken in full from Section 2 of [RFC 4786]. | taken in full from Section 2 of [RFC 4786]. | |||
Anycast: the practice of making a particular Service Address | Anycast: the practice of making a particular Service Address | |||
available in multiple, discrete, autonomous locations, such that | available in multiple, discrete, autonomous locations, such that | |||
datagrams sent are routed to one of several available locations. | datagrams sent are routed to one of several available locations. | |||
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 | skipping to change at page 4, line 49 | |||
Global-Scope Anycast: reachability information for the anycast | Global-Scope Anycast: reachability information for the anycast | |||
Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a | Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a | |||
way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the | way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the | |||
whole routing system. | whole routing system. | |||
Service Address: an IP address associated with a particular service | Service Address: an IP address associated with a particular service | |||
(e.g., the destination address used by DNS resolvers to reach a | (e.g., the destination address used by DNS resolvers to reach a | |||
particular authority server). | particular authority server). | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | ||||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | ||||
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. | ||||
2. Introduction | 2. Introduction | |||
IP anycasting [RFC 4786] has been deployed for an array of network | IP anycasting [RFC 4786] has been deployed for an array of network | |||
services since the early 1990s. It provides a mechanism for a given | services since the early 1990s. It provides a mechanism for a given | |||
network resource to be available in a more distributed manner, | network resource to be available in a more distributed manner, | |||
locally and/or globally, with a more robust and resilient footprint, | locally and/or globally, with a more robust and resilient footprint, | |||
commonly yielding better localization and absorption of systemic | commonly yielding better localization and absorption of systemic | |||
query loads, as well as better protections in the face of DDoS | query loads, as well as better protections in the face of DDoS | |||
attacks, network partitions, and other similar incidents. A large | attacks, network partitions, and other similar incidents. A large | |||
part of the Internet root DNS infrastructure, as well as many other | part of the Internet root DNS infrastructure, as well as many other | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 20 | skipping to change at page 6, line 20 | |||
given anycasted service address is, the more difficult it becomes for | given anycasted service address is, the more difficult it becomes for | |||
network operators to detect operational and security issues that | network operators to detect operational and security issues that | |||
affect that service. Some examples of such security and operational | affect that service. Some examples of such security and operational | |||
issues include BGP route leaks affecting the anycasted service, rogue | issues include BGP route leaks affecting the anycasted service, rogue | |||
anycast nodes appearing for the service, or the emergence of other | anycast nodes appearing for the service, or the emergence of other | |||
aberrant behavior in either the routing system, the forward query | aberrant behavior in either the routing system, the forward query | |||
datapath, or query response datapath. Diagnosis of the routing | datapath, or query response datapath. Diagnosis of the routing | |||
system issues is complicated by the fact that no unique | system issues is complicated by the fact that no unique | |||
discriminators exist in the routing system to identify a given local | discriminators exist in the routing system to identify a given local | |||
or global anycast node. Furthermore, both datapath and routing | or global anycast node. Furthermore, both datapath and routing | |||
system problem identification is compounded by the fact that either | system problem identification is compounded by the fact that these | |||
incident type can be topologically-dependent. | incident types can be topologically-dependent, and only observable | |||
between a given client-server set. | ||||
Additionally, while it goes without saying that anycasted services | Additionally, while it goes without saying that many anycasted | |||
should always strive for exact synchronization across all instances | services strive for exact synchronization across all instances of an | |||
of an anycasted service address, if local policies or data plane | anycasted service address, if local policies or data plane response | |||
response manipulation techniques were to "influence" responses within | manipulation techniques were to "influence" responses within a given | |||
a given region in such a way that those response are no longer | region in such a way that those responses are no longer authentic or | |||
authentic or that they diverge from what other nodes within an | that they diverge from what other nodes within an anycasted service | |||
anycasted service were providing, then it should be an absolute | were providing, then it should be an absolute necessity that those | |||
necessity that those modified resources only be utilized by service | modified resources only be utilized by service consumers within that | |||
consumers within that region or influencer's jurisdiction. | region or influencer's jurisdiction. | |||
Mechanisms should exist at both the network and service layer to make | Mechanisms should exist at both the network and service layer to make | |||
it abundantly apparent to operators and users alike whether any of | it abundantly apparent to operators and users alike whether any of | |||
the query responses are not authentic. For DNS, DNSSEC [RFC 4033] | the query responses are not authentic. For DNS, DNSSEC [RFC 4033] | |||
provides this capability at the service layer with object level | provides this capability at the service layer with object level | |||
integrity, assuming validation is being enforced by recursive name | integrity, assuming validation is being performed by recursive name | |||
servers, and DNSSEC deployment at the root and top level domain (TLD) | servers, and DNSSEC deployment at the root and top level domain (TLD) | |||
levels is well underway [DNSSEC-DEPLOY]. Furthermore, control plane | levels is well underway [DNSSEC-DEPLOY]. Furthermore, control plane | |||
discriminators should exist to enable operators to know toward which | discriminators should exist to enable operators to know toward which | |||
of a given set of instances a query is being directed, and to enable | of a given set of instances a query is being directed, and to enable | |||
detection and alerting capabilities when this changes. Such | detection and alerting capabilities when this changes. Such | |||
discriminators may also be employed to enable anycast node preference | discriminators may also be employed to enable anycast node preference | |||
or filtering keys, should local operational policy require it. | or filtering keys, should local operational policy require it. | |||
3. Recommendation for Unique Origin ASNs | 3. Recommendation for Unique Origin ASNs | |||
In order to be able to better detect changes to routing information | In order to be able to better detect changes to routing information | |||
associated with crtical anycasted resources, globally anycasted | associated with critical anycasted resources, globally anycasted | |||
services with partitioned origin ASNs SHOULD utilize a unique origin | services with partitioned origin ASNs SHOULD utilize a unique origin | |||
ASN per node where possible. | ASN per node where possible, if appropriate in their operating | |||
environment and service model. | ||||
Discrete origin ASNs per node provide a discriminator in the routing | Discrete origin ASNs per node provide a discriminator in the routing | |||
system that would enable detection of leaked or hijacked instances | system that would enable detection of leaked or hijacked instances | |||
more quickly, and would also enable operators that so choose to | more quickly, and would also enable operators that so choose to | |||
proactively develop routing policies that express preferences or | proactively develop routing policies that express preferences or | |||
avoidance for a given node or set of nodes associated with an | avoidance for a given node or set of nodes associated with an | |||
anycasted service. This is particularly useful when it is observed | anycasted service. This is particularly useful when it is observed | |||
that local policy or known issues exist with the performance or | that local policy or known issues exist with the performance or | |||
authenticity of responses returned from a specific anycast node, or | authenticity of responses returned from a specific anycast node, or | |||
that enacted policies meant to affect service within a particular | that enacted policies meant to affect service within a particular | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 | skipping to change at page 7, line 44 | |||
resources, in particular those associated with critical | resources, in particular those associated with critical | |||
infrastructure-enabling services such as root and TLD name servers, | infrastructure-enabling services such as root and TLD name servers, | |||
SHOULD warrant special consideration with regard to AS number | SHOULD warrant special consideration with regard to AS number | |||
allocation practices during policy development by the constituents of | allocation practices during policy development by the constituents of | |||
those responsible organizations (e.g., the Regional Internet | those responsible organizations (e.g., the Regional Internet | |||
Registries). Additionally, defining precisely what constitutes | Registries). Additionally, defining precisely what constitutes | |||
"critical infrastructure services" or "special consideration" (e.g., | "critical infrastructure services" or "special consideration" (e.g., | |||
some small range of 32-bit AS numbers might be provided) is left to | some small range of 32-bit AS numbers might be provided) is left to | |||
the constituents of those organizations. Additionally, critical | the constituents of those organizations. Additionally, critical | |||
infrastructure employment of 32-bit ASNs for new nodes might well | infrastructure employment of 32-bit ASNs for new nodes might well | |||
help to foster adoption of native 32-bit ASN support by network | help to foster more rapid adoption of native 32-bit ASN support by | |||
operators. | network operators. | |||
One additional benefit of unique origin AS numbers per anycast node | One additional benefit of unique origin AS numbers per anycast node | |||
is that Resource PKI (RPKI) Secure Inter-domain Routing [SIDR] | is that Resource PKI (RPKI) Secure Inter-domain Routing [SIDR] | |||
machinery, and in particular, that of Route Origin Authorizations | machinery, and in particular, that of Route Origin Authorizations | |||
(ROAs), and routing policies that may be derived based on those ROAs, | (ROAs), and routing policies that may be derived based on those ROAs, | |||
can be employed with per anycast node resolution, rather than relying | can be employed with per anycast node resolution, rather than relying | |||
on a single ROA and common origin AS to cover all instantiations of | on a single ROA and common origin AS to cover all instantiations of | |||
an anycasted prefix (possibly hundreds) within the global routing | an anycasted prefix (possibly hundreds) within the global routing | |||
system. For example, deployments that incorporate partitioned ASN | system. For example, deployments that incorporate partitioned ASN | |||
anycast models that have a single ASN bound to all nodes but cross | anycast models that have a single ASN bound to all nodes but cross | |||
organizational or political boundaries, a situation may arise where | organizational or political boundaries, a situation may arise where | |||
nobody would be deemed appropriate to hold the key for the ROA. | nobody would be deemed appropriate to hold the key for the ROA. | |||
Additionally, a globally anycasted service within a given IP prefix | Additionally, a globally anycasted service within a given IP prefix | |||
that shares a common ASN might be taken totally offline because of | that shares a common ASN might be taken totally offline because of | |||
the revocation of a ROA for that origin. | the revocation of a ROA for that origin ASN. The RPKI model today | |||
already inherently accommodates issuance of multiple ROAs with unique | ||||
origins for a given prefix. | ||||
4. Additional Recommendations for Globally Anycasted Services | 4. Additional Recommendations for Globally Anycasted Services | |||
Two additional recommendations for globally anycasted critical | Two additional recommendations for globally anycasted critical | |||
infrastructure services are related to publication of information | infrastructure services are related to publication of information | |||
associated with a given node's physical location, and which adjacent | associated with a given node's physical location, and which adjacent | |||
upstream ASNs an origin AS interconnects with. The former would | upstream ASNs an origin AS interconnects with. The former would | |||
allow operators to better define and optimize preferences associated | allow operators to better define and optimize preferences associated | |||
with a given node to align with local policy and service | with a given node to align with local policy and service | |||
optimizations. The latter would allow expression through policy such | optimizations. The latter would allow expression through policy such | |||
as Routing Policy Specification Language [RFC 4012] specified in | as Routing Policy Specification Language [RFC 4012] specified in | |||
Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) in a manner that illustrates a | Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) in a manner that illustrates a | |||
discrete set of upstream ASNs for each anycast node, rather than the | discrete set of upstream ASNs for each anycast node, rather than the | |||
current model where all upstream ASNs associated with a common origin | current model where all upstream ASNs associated with a common origin | |||
AS may or may not be expressed. This information would provide an | AS may or may not be expressed. This information would provide an | |||
additional level of static AS path validation or monitoring and | additional level of static routing policy or monitoring and detection | |||
detection models by network operators, and perhaps explicit network | models by network operators, and perhaps explicit network layer | |||
layer source address validation in the datapath. | source address validation in the datapath. | |||
5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
The recommendations made in this memo aim to provide more flexibility | The recommendations made in this memo aim to provide more flexibility | |||
for network operators hoping to better monitor and prevent issues | for network operators hoping to better monitor and prevent issues | |||
related to globally anycasted critical infrastructure resources. | related to globally anycasted critical infrastructure resources. | |||
Anycast itself provides considerable benefit in the face of certain | Anycast itself provides considerable benefit in the face of certain | |||
attacks, yet if a given instance of a service can appear at many | attacks, yet if a given instance of a service can appear at many | |||
points in the routing system and legitimate instances are difficult | points in the routing system and legitimate instances are difficult | |||
to distinguish from malicious ones, then anycast expands the | to distinguish from malicious ones, then anycast expands the | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 | skipping to change at page 9, line 19 | |||
more easily detect or scope the impact of a particular incident are | more easily detect or scope the impact of a particular incident are | |||
illustrated in [RENESYS-BLOG]. | illustrated in [RENESYS-BLOG]. | |||
Furthermore, while application layer protection mechanisms such as | Furthermore, while application layer protection mechanisms such as | |||
DNSSEC provide object level integrity and authentication, they often | DNSSEC provide object level integrity and authentication, they often | |||
do so at the cost of introducing more failure conditions. For | do so at the cost of introducing more failure conditions. For | |||
example, if a recursive name server is performing DNSSEC validator | example, if a recursive name server is performing DNSSEC validator | |||
functions and receives a bogus response to a given query as a result | functions and receives a bogus response to a given query as a result | |||
of a man-in-the-middle (MITM) or injected spoofed response packet | of a man-in-the-middle (MITM) or injected spoofed response packet | |||
such as a cache poisoning attempt, the possibility might exist that | such as a cache poisoning attempt, the possibility might exist that | |||
that packet is processed by the server and results in some temporal | the response packet is processed by the server and results in some | |||
or persistent DoS condition on the recursuve name server and for its | temporal or persistent DoS condition on the recursive name server and | |||
customer set. The unique origin AS mechanism outlined in this | for its client set. The unique origin AS mechanism outlined in this | |||
document provides the capability for network operators to expressly | document provides the capability for network operators to expressly | |||
avoid anycast node catchments known to regularly elicit bogus | avoid anycast node catchments known to regularly elicit bogus | |||
responses, while allowing the anycasted service address to remain | responses, while allowing the anycasted service address to remain | |||
available otherwise. | available otherwise. | |||
6. Deployment Considerations | 6. Deployment Considerations | |||
Maintenance of unique ASNs for each node within an anycasted service | Maintenance of unique ASNs for each node within an anycasted service | |||
may be challenging for some critical infrastructure service operators | may be challenging for some critical infrastructure service operators | |||
initially, but for globally anycasted resources there needs to be | initially, but for globally anycasted resources there needs to be | |||
some type of per-node discriminator in the control plane to enable | some type of per-node discriminator in the control plane to enable | |||
detection, remediation, and optimally, preventative controls for | detection, remediation, and optimally, preventative controls for | |||
dealing with routing system anomalies that are intensified by the | dealing with routing system anomalies that are intensified by the | |||
application of IP anycasting. Additionally, this technique sets the | application of IP anycasting. Additionally, this technique sets the | |||
stage to employ RPKI-enabled machinery and more secure and explicit | stage to employ RPKI-enabled machinery and more secure and explicit | |||
routing policies, which all network operators should be considering. | routing policies, which all network operators should be considering. | |||
The granularity of data publication related to anycast node location | The granularity of data publication related to anycast node location | |||
should be left to the devises of each services operator, but some | should be left to the devises of each services operator, and the | |||
reasonable level of detail to enable operators to make informed | value of this mechanism in each operators unique environment, but | |||
decisions that align with their security and operational objectives | some reasonable level of detail to enable operators and service | |||
as outlined herein should be provided by each critical services | consumers to make informed decisions that align with their security | |||
operator. | and operational objectives as outlined herein should be provided by | |||
each critical services operator. | ||||
Adjacent AS information for a given origin AS can be obtained through | Adjacent AS information for a given origin AS can be obtained through | |||
careful routing system analysis already when prefixes are advertised | careful routing system analysis already when prefixes are advertised | |||
via a given set of AS adjacencies, and therefore should present no | via a given set of AS adjacencies, and therefore should present no | |||
new threat. However, network interconnection and peering policies | new threat. However, network interconnection and peering policies | |||
may well present some challenges in this area. For example, if a | may well present some challenges in this area. For example, if a | |||
technique such as unique origin AS per node is employed then a single | technique such as unique origin AS per node is employed then a single | |||
orgnaizaton may no longer have a single AS for interconnection at | organizaton may no longer have a single AS for interconnection at | |||
each location, and interconnection policies should expressly consider | each location, and interconnection policies should expressly consider | |||
this. That said, interconnection with networks that provide critical | this. That said, interconnection with networks that provide critical | |||
infrastructure services should certainly be given due consideration | infrastructure services should certainly be given due consideration | |||
as such by network operators when evaluating interconnection | as such by network operators when evaluating interconnection | |||
strategies. | strategies. | |||
Some root and TLD operators today identify erroneous anycast prefix | Some root and TLD operators today identify erroneous anycast prefix | |||
announcements by detecting prefix announcements with an origin AS | announcements by detecting prefix announcements with an origin AS | |||
other than the common origin AS shared via all nodes. This detection | other than the common origin AS shared via all nodes. This detection | |||
model would need to be expanded to account for unique origin ASNs per | model would need to be expanded to account for unique origin ASNs per | |||
node if a given service operators chooses to employ such as a model, | node if a given service operators chooses to employ such a model, and | |||
and given that AS paths are trivial to manipulate, the above | given that AS paths are trivial to manipulate in the current system, | |||
technique would only assist in the event of unintentional | the above technique would only assist in the event of unintentional | |||
configuration errors that reoriginate the route (e.g., it doesn't | configuration errors that reoriginate the route (e.g., it doesn't | |||
even detect leaks that preserve the initial path elements). | even detect leaks that preserve the initial path elements). In that | |||
case, work underway on routing security origin and path validation in | ||||
the SIDR working group and beyond should be consulted. | ||||
Finally, anycast node presence at exchange points that employs route | While local policy based on any BGP attributes, to include AS path | |||
information, can influence policy within a local administrative | ||||
domain and possibly downstream, there exists a possibly that upstream | ||||
nodes continue to use a route deemed undesirable by the local admin | ||||
once data packets reach that network. Network operators must | ||||
understand the implications of this property in their operating | ||||
environment, as it is inherent in all Interent routing. | ||||
Finally, anycast node presence at exchange points that employ route | ||||
servers may make enumeration of adjacent ASNs for a given node | servers may make enumeration of adjacent ASNs for a given node | |||
challenging. While this is understood, service operators should make | challenging. While this is understood, service operators should make | |||
every effort to enumerate the set of adjacent ASNs associated with a | every effort to enumerate the set of adjacent ASNs associated with a | |||
given anycast node's origin AS. Without express understanding of | given anycast node's origin AS. Without express understanding of | |||
legitimate AS interconnection and authorized origin AS information, | legitimate AS interconnection and authorized origin AS information, | |||
more secure routing is difficult to acheive. | more secure routing is difficult to achieve. | |||
7. Acknowledgements | 7. Acknowledgements | |||
Thanks to David Conrad, Steve Kent, Mark Kosters, Andrei Robachevsky, | Thanks to David Conrad, Steve Kent, Mark Kosters, Andrei Robachevsky, | |||
Paul Vixie, Brad Verd, Andrew Herrmann, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Joe | Paul Vixie, Brad Verd, Andrew Herrmann, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Joe | |||
Abley, Benson Schliesser, Shane Amante, and Randy Bush for review and | Abley, Benson Schliesser, Shane Amante, Hugo Salgado, and Randy Bush | |||
comments on this concept. | for review and comments on this concept. | |||
Others? Your name could be here....... | ||||
8. IANA Considerations | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
This document requires no direct IANA actions, although it does | This document requires no direct IANA actions, although it does | |||
provide general guidance to number resource allocation and policy | provide general guidance to number resource allocation and policy | |||
development organizations, and in particular Regional Internet | development organizations, and in particular Regional Internet | |||
Registries, regarding allocation of AS numbers for globally anycasted | Registries, regarding allocation of AS numbers for globally anycasted | |||
services. | services. | |||
9. References | 9. References | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 4 | skipping to change at page 12, line 10 | |||
[RENESYS-BLOG] Zmijewski, E., "Accidentally Importing Censorship", | [RENESYS-BLOG] Zmijewski, E., "Accidentally Importing Censorship", | |||
Renesys Blog, March 30, 2010. | Renesys Blog, March 30, 2010. | |||
<http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/03/fouling-the-global-nest.shtml> | <http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/03/fouling-the-global-nest.shtml> | |||
[SIDR] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., "An Infrastructure to Support Secure | [SIDR] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., "An Infrastructure to Support Secure | |||
Internet Routing", October 2009, Internet-Draft, "Work in | Internet Routing", October 2009, Internet-Draft, "Work in | |||
Progress". | Progress". | |||
10. Authors' Addresses | 10. Authors' Addresses | |||
Danny McPherson | Danny McPherson | |||
Verisign, Inc. | Verisign, Inc. | |||
21345 Ridgetop Circle | ||||
Dulles, VA USA 20166 | ||||
Phone: +1 703.948.3200 | ||||
Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com | Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com | |||
Ryan Donnelly | Ryan Donnelly | |||
Verisign, Inc. | Verisign, Inc. | |||
21345 Ridgetop Circle | ||||
Dulles, VA USA 20166 | ||||
Phone: +1 703.948.3200 | ||||
Email: rdonnelly@verisign.com | Email: rdonnelly@verisign.com | |||
Frank Scalzo | Frank Scalzo | |||
Verisign, Inc. | Verisign, Inc. | |||
21345 Ridgetop Circle | ||||
Dulles, VA USA 20166 | ||||
Phone: +1 703.948.3200 | ||||
Email: fscalzo@verisign.com | Email: fscalzo@verisign.com | |||
Copyright Statement | Copyright Statement | |||
Copyright (C) (2010) The IETF Trust and the persons | Copyright (C) (2011) The IETF Trust and the persons | |||
identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. | identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with | |||
respect to this document. | respect to this document. | |||
End of changes. 30 change blocks. | ||||
56 lines changed or deleted | 84 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |