prefix limit

draft-ymbk-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml

@@ -178,8 +178,9 @@
     <t>
       When RPKI data cause one or more paths to be dropped, withdrawn,
       or merely not chosen as best path due to RPKI-based policy (ROV,
-      ASPA, etc.), those paths MUST be saved and marked so that later
-      VRPs can reevaluate them against then current policy.
+      ASPA, etc.), those paths MUST be saved and marked (to not be used
+      for best path evaluation etc.) so that later VRPs can reevaluate
+      them against then current policy.
     </t>
 
     <t>
@@ -196,6 +197,12 @@
       this could cause inconsistent behavior.
     </t>
 
+    <t>
+      If Route Refresh has been issued toward more than one peer, the
+      order of receipt of the refresh data can cause churn in both best
+      path selection and in outbound signaling.
+    </t>
+
    </section>
 
   <section anchor="ops" title="Operational Recommendations">
@@ -226,6 +233,15 @@
       controlled circumstances.
     </t>
 
+    <t>
+      Operators using the specification in <xref target="rib"/> should
+      be aware that a misconfigured neighbor might erroneously send a
+      massive number of paths, thus consuming a lot of memory.
+      Pre-policy filtering such as described in <xref
+      target="I-D.sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound"/> SHOULD be used to reduce
+      this exposure.
+    </t>
+
     <t>
       Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)which provide <xref
       target="RFC7947"/> Route Servers should be aware that some members
@@ -264,7 +280,7 @@
       
     <t>
       The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison, John Heasley, Nick
-      Hilliard, and John Scudder.
+      Hilliard, John Scudder, Matthias Waehlisch, and Saku Ytti.
     </t>
     
   </section>
@@ -278,6 +294,7 @@
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4271.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7313.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>
+    <?rfc include="reference.I-D.sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound.xml"?>
     </references>
 
   <references title="Informative References">