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