<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 2.6.10) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-wirtgen-bgp-tls-03" category="exp" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" number="3" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.29.0 -->
  <link href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wirtgen-bgp-tls-03" rel="prev"/>
  <front>
    <title abbrev="bgp-tls">BGP over TLS/TCP</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3"/>
    <author initials="T." surname="Wirtgen" fullname="Thomas Wirtgen">
      <organization>UCLouvain</organization>
      <address>
        <email>thomas.wirtgen@uclouvain.be</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="O." surname="Bonaventure" fullname="Olivier Bonaventure">
      <organization>UCLouvain &amp; WELRI</organization>
      <address>
        <email>olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="July" day="07"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>IDR</workgroup>
    <keyword>tcp</keyword>
    <keyword>tls</keyword>
    <keyword>bgp</keyword>
    <keyword>tcp-ao</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 84?>

<t>This document specifies the utilization of TCP/TLS to support BGP.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>About This Document</name>
      <t>
        Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wirtgen-bgp-tls/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
        Discussion of this document takes place on the
        IDR Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:idr@ietf.org"/>),
        which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/"/>.
        Subscribe at <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
        <eref target="https://github.com/IPNetworkingLab/draft-bgp-tls"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 88?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) <xref target="RFC4271"/> relies on the TCP protocol
to establish BGP sessions between routers. There are ongoing discussions
within the IETF <xref target="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic"/> to replace TCP with
the QUIC protocol <xref target="RFC9000"/>. QUIC brings many features compared to
TCP including security, the support of multiple streams or datagrams.</t>
      <t>From a security viewpoint, an important benefit of QUIC compared to TCP is
that QUIC by design prevents injection attacks that are possible when
TCP is used by BGP <xref target="RFC4272"/>. Several techniques can be used by BGP routers
to counter this attacks <xref target="RFC5082"/> <xref target="RFC5925"/>. TCP-AO <xref target="RFC5925"/>
authenticates the packets exchanged over a BGP session and provides similar
features as QUIC. However, it a recent survey <xref target="SURVEY"/> indicates that it remains
less used than TCP over MD5 <xref target="RFC2385"/>.</t>
      <t>The widespread deployment of TLS <xref target="RFC8446"/> combined with the possibility of
deriving TCP-AO keys from the TLS handshake <xref target="I-D.draft-piraux-tcp-ao-tls"/>
creates an interest in using TLS to secure BGP sessions. While TLS is mainly
used to interact with servers that have a certificate bound to a domain name,
it is also possible to use TLS certificates bound to IP addresses <xref target="IPCERT"/>.
Such certificates are very useful to use BGP over TLS/TCP.</t>
      <t>This document
describes how BGP can operate over TCP/TLS. Experience in implementing BGP
over TLS/TCP <xref target="BGPOST"/> shows that this is less costly than porting a BGP implementation
over QUIC.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="conventions-and-definitions">
      <name>Conventions and Definitions</name>
      <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      <?line -18?>

<t>This document uses network byte order (that is, big endian) values.
Fields are placed starting from the high-order bits of each byte.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="summary-of-operation">
      <name>Summary of operation</name>
      <t>A BGP over TLS/TCP session is established in two phases:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>establish a transport layer connection using TCP</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>establish a TLS session over the TCP connection</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The TCP connection <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be established on port TBD1.</t>
      <t>During the establishment of the TLS session, the router that initiates the
connection <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the "botls" token in the Application Layer Protocol
Negotiation (ALPN) extension <xref target="RFC7301"/>. The support for other ALPN <bcp14>MUST
NOT</bcp14> be proposed during the TLS handshake.</t>
      <t>Once the TLS handshake is established and finished, the BGP session is
initiated as defined in <xref target="RFC4271"/> and the protocol operates in the
same way as a classic BGP over TCP session. The difference is that the
BGP session is now encrypted and authenticated using the TLS layer.
As in <xref target="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic"/>, the TLS authentication
parameters used for this connection are out of the scope of this draft.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document improves the security of BGP sessions since the information
exchanged over the session is now protected by using TLS.</t>
      <t>If TLS encounters a payload injection attack, it will generate an alert that immediately
closes the TLS session. The BGP router <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> then attempt to reestablish the session.
However, this will cause traffic to be interrupted during the connection re-establishement.</t>
      <t>If both BGP peer supports TCP-AO, the TLS stack is protected against payload injection and
this attack can be avoided. When enabled, TCP-AO counters TCP injection
attacks listed in <xref target="RFC5082"/>.</t>
      <t>Furthermore, if the BGP router supports TCP-AO, we recommend an opportunistic
TCP-AO approach as suggested in <xref target="I-D.draft-piraux-tcp-ao-tls"/>. The
router will attempt to connect using TCP-AO with a default key. When the TLS
handshake is finished, the routers will securely derive a new TCP-AO key from the TLS key.</t>
      <t>TCP-MD5 <xref target="RFC2385"/> <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be used to protect the TLS session if TCP-AO is not available on the
BGP router.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>IANA is requested to assign a TCP port (TBD1) from the "Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number Registry" as follows:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Service Name: botls</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Port Number: TBD1</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Transport Protocol: TCP</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Description: BGP over TLS/TCP</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Assignee: IETF</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Contact: IDR WG</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Registration Data: TBD</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Reference: this document</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Unauthorized Use Reported: idr@ietf.org</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>It is suggested to use the same port as the one selected for BGP over QUIC
<xref target="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>The authors thank Dimitri Safonov for the TCP-AO implementation in Linux.
This work has been partially supported by the Walloon Region as part of the
funding of the FRFS-WEL-T strategic axis.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="false" anchor="change-log">
      <name>Change log</name>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC4271">
          <front>
            <title>A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Rekhter"/>
            <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="S. Hares" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Hares"/>
            <date month="January" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol.</t>
              <t>The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced.</t>
              <t>BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4271"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4271"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4272">
          <front>
            <title>BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis</title>
            <author fullname="S. Murphy" initials="S." surname="Murphy"/>
            <date month="January" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, was originally designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms internal to BGP that protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior.</t>
              <t>This document discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. This document does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4272"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4272"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7301">
          <front>
            <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension</title>
            <author fullname="S. Friedl" initials="S." surname="Friedl"/>
            <author fullname="A. Popov" initials="A." surname="Popov"/>
            <author fullname="A. Langley" initials="A." surname="Langley"/>
            <author fullname="E. Stephan" initials="E." surname="Stephan"/>
            <date month="July" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for application-layer protocol negotiation within the TLS handshake. For instances in which multiple application protocols are supported on the same TCP or UDP port, this extension allows the application layer to negotiate which protocol will be used within the TLS connection.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7301"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7301"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5925">
          <front>
            <title>The TCP Authentication Option</title>
            <author fullname="J. Touch" initials="J." surname="Touch"/>
            <author fullname="A. Mankin" initials="A." surname="Mankin"/>
            <author fullname="R. Bonica" initials="R." surname="Bonica"/>
            <date month="June" year="2010"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO), which obsoletes the TCP MD5 Signature option of RFC 2385 (TCP MD5). TCP-AO specifies the use of stronger Message Authentication Codes (MACs), protects against replays even for long-lived TCP connections, and provides more details on the association of security with TCP connections than TCP MD5. TCP-AO is compatible with either a static Master Key Tuple (MKT) configuration or an external, out-of-band MKT management mechanism; in either case, TCP-AO also protects connections when using the same MKT across repeated instances of a connection, using traffic keys derived from the MKT, and coordinates MKT changes between endpoints. The result is intended to support current infrastructure uses of TCP MD5, such as to protect long-lived connections (as used, e.g., in BGP and LDP), and to support a larger set of MACs with minimal other system and operational changes. TCP-AO uses a different option identifier than TCP MD5, even though TCP-AO and TCP MD5 are never permitted to be used simultaneously. TCP-AO supports IPv6, and is fully compatible with the proposed requirements for the replacement of TCP MD5. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5925"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5925"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2385">
          <front>
            <title>Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option</title>
            <author fullname="A. Heffernan" initials="A." surname="Heffernan"/>
            <date month="August" year="1998"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for BGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2385"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2385"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-piraux-tcp-ao-tls">
          <front>
            <title>Opportunistic TCP-AO with TLS</title>
            <author fullname="Maxime Piraux" initials="M." surname="Piraux">
              <organization>UCLouvain &amp; WELRI</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Olivier Bonaventure" initials="O." surname="Bonaventure">
              <organization>UCLouvain &amp; WELRI</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Thomas Wirtgen" initials="T." surname="Wirtgen">
              <organization>UCLouvain &amp; WELRI</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="21" month="October" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document specifies an opportunistic mode for TCP-AO.  In this
   mode, the TCP connection starts with a well-known authentication key
   which is later replaced by a secure key derived from the TLS
   handshake.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-piraux-tcp-ao-tls-02"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic">
          <front>
            <title>BGP over QUIC</title>
            <author fullname="Alvaro Retana" initials="A." surname="Retana">
              <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Yingzhen Qu" initials="Y." surname="Qu">
              <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jeffrey Haas" initials="J." surname="Haas">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Shuanglong Chen" initials="S." surname="Chen">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
              <organization>Nvidia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="6" month="July" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document specifies the procedures for BGP to use QUIC as a
   transport protocol with a mechanism to carry Network Layer protocols
   (AFI/SAFI) over multiple QUIC streams to achieve high resiliency.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic-07"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5082">
          <front>
            <title>The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)</title>
            <author fullname="V. Gill" initials="V." surname="Gill"/>
            <author fullname="J. Heasley" initials="J." surname="Heasley"/>
            <author fullname="D. Meyer" initials="D." surname="Meyer"/>
            <author fullname="P. Savola" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Savola"/>
            <author fullname="C. Pignataro" initials="C." surname="Pignataro"/>
            <date month="October" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The use of a packet's Time to Live (TTL) (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) to verify whether the packet was originated by an adjacent node on a connected link has been used in many recent protocols. This document generalizes this technique. This document obsoletes Experimental RFC 3682. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5082"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5082"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8446">
          <front>
            <title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3</title>
            <author fullname="E. Rescorla" initials="E." surname="Rescorla"/>
            <date month="August" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8446"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8446"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9000">
          <front>
            <title>QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport</title>
            <author fullname="J. Iyengar" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Iyengar"/>
            <author fullname="M. Thomson" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Thomson"/>
            <date month="May" year="2021"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines the core of the QUIC transport protocol. QUIC provides applications with flow-controlled streams for structured communication, low-latency connection establishment, and network path migration. QUIC includes security measures that ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability in a range of deployment circumstances. Accompanying documents describe the integration of TLS for key negotiation, loss detection, and an exemplary congestion control algorithm.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9000"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9000"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="BGPOST">
          <front>
            <title>The Multiple Benefits of a Secure Transport for BGP</title>
            <author fullname="Thomas Wirtgen" initials="T." surname="Wirtgen">
              <organization>ICTEAM, UCLouvain &amp;amp; WEL Research Institute, Louvain-la-Neuve, Walloon Brabant, BE</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Nicolas Rybowski" initials="N." surname="Rybowski">
              <organization>ICTEAM, UCLouvain &amp;amp; WEL Research Institute, Louvain-la-Neuve, Walloon Brabant, Belgium</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Cristel Pelsser" initials="C." surname="Pelsser">
              <organization>ICTEAM, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Walloon Brabant, Belgium</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Olivier Bonaventure" initials="O." surname="Bonaventure">
              <organization>ICTEAM, UCLouvain &amp;amp; WEL Research Institute, Louvain-la-Neuve, Walloon Brabant, Belgium</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="November" year="2024"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Proceedings of the ACM on Networking" value="vol. 2, no. CoNEXT4, pp. 1-23"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.1145/3696406"/>
          <refcontent>Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)</refcontent>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="SURVEY">
          <front>
            <title>Survey on the Configuration of BGP routers</title>
            <author initials="T." surname="Wirtgen" fullname="Thomas Wirtgen">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2024"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Technical report, http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/292356" value=""/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="IPCERT">
          <front>
            <title>We've Issued Our First IP Address Certificate</title>
            <author initials="A." surname="Gable" fullname="Aaron Gable">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2025"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Blog https://letsencrypt.org/2025/07/01/issuing-our-first-ip-address-certificate/" value=""/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
