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

-01 published

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Randy Bush 2022-05-06 14:58:11 -07:00
parent 5e4fc9d424
commit d2f3603fd0
1 changed files with 29 additions and 22 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

51
draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<!-- <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"> -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
@ -11,7 +11,8 @@
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" consensus="true"
docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-00"
submissionType="IETF"
docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-01"
ipr="trust200902" updates="8481">
<front>
@ -176,18 +177,23 @@
</t>
<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When RPKI data cause one or more paths to be dropped, withdrawn,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 (to not be used
for best path evaluation etc.) so that later RPKI data can
reevaluate those paths.
When RPKI data cause one or more paths to be dropped due to ROV,
those paths MUST NOT be evaluated for best path, but MUST be saved
(either separately or marked) so they may be reevaluated with
respect to new RPKI data.
</t>
<t>
If new RPKI data arrive which invalidate the best path, and the
router did not keep all alternatives, then it MUST issue a route
refresh so those alternatives may be evaluated for best path.
</t>
<t>
Policy which may drop paths due to RPKI-based checks such as ROV,
ASPA, BGPsec, etc. MUST be run, and the dropped paths saved per
the above paragraph, before non-RPKI policies are run, as the
latter may change path attributes.
ASPA, BGPsec <xref target="RFC8205"/>, etc. MUST be run, and the
dropped paths saved per the above paragraph, before non-RPKI
policies are run, as the latter may change path attributes.
</t>
<t>
@ -207,17 +213,17 @@
<section anchor="ops" title="Operational Recommendations">
<t>
Routers MUST either keep the full Adj-RIB-In or implement the
specification in <xref target="rib"/>.
</t>
<t>
Operators deploying ROV and/or other RPKI based policies SHOULD
ensure that the router implementation is not causing unnecessary
Route Refresh requests to neighbors.
</t>
<t>
Routers MUST either keep the full Adj-RIB-In or implement the
specification in <xref target="rib"/>.
</t>
<t>
If the router does not implement these recommendations, the
operator SHOULD enable the vendor's knob to keep the full
@ -227,10 +233,10 @@
</t>
<t>
If the router has insufficient resources to support this, it
MUST not be used for Route Origin Validation. I.e. the knob in
<xref target="rib"/> should only be used in very well known and
controlled circumstances.
If the router has insufficient resources to support either of the
two proposed options, it MUST not be used for Route Origin
Validation. I.e. the knob in <xref target="rib"/> should only be
used in very well known and controlled circumstances.
</t>
<t>
@ -279,9 +285,9 @@
<section anchor="acks" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>
The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison, John Heasley, Nick
Hilliard, Ties de Kock. John Scudder, Matthias Waehlisch, and Saku
Ytti.
The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison, John Heasley, John
Scudder, Matthias Waehlisch, Nick Hilliard, Saku Ytti, and Ties de
Kock.
</t>
</section>
@ -303,6 +309,7 @@
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6482.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6811.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7947.xml"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8205.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"?>