randy/draft-rov-no-rr
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

-02 published

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Randy Bush 2021-11-15 05:32:59 -08:00
parent f6b743e810
commit c8d78640c7
1 changed files with 26 additions and 22 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

48
draft-ymbk-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml
View file

@ -16,8 +16,8 @@
<front>
<title abbrev="RPKI ROV Without Route Refresh">
RPKI Route Origin Validation Without Route Refresh
<title abbrev="RPKI-Based Policy Without Route Refresh">
RPKI-Based Policy Without Route Refresh
</title>
<author fullname="Randy Bush" initials="R." surname="Bush">
@ -80,9 +80,9 @@
<abstract>
<t>
A BGP Speaker performing RPKI-based Route Origin Validation should
not issue Route Refresh to its neighbors when receiving new VRPs.
A method for avoiding doing so is described.
A BGP Speaker performing RPKI-based policy should not issue Route
Refresh to its neighbors when receiving new RPKI data. A method
for avoiding doing so is described.
</t>
</abstract>
@ -111,14 +111,15 @@
target="RFC4271"/> BGP implementations to not keep a full
Adj-RIB-In (Sec. 1.1). When doing RPKI-based Route Origin
Validation (<xref target="RFC6811"/> and <xref
target="RFC8481"/>), if such a BGP speaker receives new ROAs/VRPs,
it might not have kept paths previously marked as Invalid. Such
an implementation must then request a Route Refresh <xref
target="RFC7313"/> from its neighbors to recover the paths which
might be covered by these new VRPs. This will be perceived as
rude by those neighbors as it passes a serious resource burden on
to them. This document recommends implementations keep but mark
Invalidated paths so the Route Refresh is no longer needed.
target="RFC8481"/>), and similar RPKI-based policy, if such a BGP
speaker receives new RPKI data, it might not have kept paths
previously marked as Invalid etc. Such an implementation must
then request a Route Refresh <xref target="RFC7313"/> from its
neighbors to recover the paths which might be covered by these new
RPKI data. This will be perceived as rude by those neighbors as
it passes a serious resource burden on to them. This document
recommends implementations keep but mark paths affected by
RPKI-based policy so Route Refresh is no longer needed.
</t>
</section>
@ -159,7 +160,9 @@
<t>
As RPKI registration and ROA creation have steadily increased,
this problem has increased, not just proportionally, but on the
order of the in-degree of ROV implementing routers.
order of the in-degree of ROV implementing routers. As ASPA
(<xref target="I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification"/>) becomes
used, the problem will increase.
</t>
</section>
@ -248,6 +251,14 @@
</section>
<section anchor="acks" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>
The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison and Nick Hilliard.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
@ -266,16 +277,9 @@
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7947.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8481.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification.xml"?>
</references>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>
The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison and Nick Hilliard.
</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>