[routing-wg] routing-wg Digest, Vol 102, Issue 3

An agreed community value to signify test invalid prefixes would help. Maybe a ripe doc (399 or 706) could be updated?
Maybe a discussion point for next meeting. 


Tony 


> On 10 Feb 2020, at 11:00, routing-wg-request at ripe.net wrote:
> 
> Send routing-wg mailing list submissions to
>   routing-wg at ripe.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://mailman.ripe.net/
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   routing-wg-request at ripe.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   routing-wg-owner at ripe.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of routing-wg digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>  1. RPKI: Forthnet drops invalids (Tassos Chatzithomaoglou)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:25:08 +0200
> From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz at forthnet.gr>
> To: RIPE Routing Working Group <routing-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: [routing-wg] RPKI: Forthnet drops invalids
> Message-ID: <ddadc504-6f58-dd44-09ba-49afcd2072fd at forthnet.gr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi to everyone,
> 
> I would like to inform you that it's been almost one month since
> Forthnet started dropping invalid prefixes on all peering/transit links,
> either national or international. It's important to note that during
> this month we haven't received any complaints.
> 
> Having monitored the invalid prefixes for more than a year and
> experimenting with routing them across different links, we decided that
> it was time to move to the next phase and start dropping prefixes that
> are declared as invalid in the RPKI ecosystem.
> 
> Two were the main reasons that helped us take the drop decision: a)
> during the last year our volume of invalid prefixes traffic decreased
> from ~1% of total traffic to less than 0,2%, b) we updated our prefix
> validation policy by including a whitelist (until we evaluate SLURM) in
> order to bypass issues quickly if/when they arise.
> 
> Note #1: in the context of the above actions we have noticed that
> invalid prefixes used for testing purposes have recently begun to grow
> (each large provider creates one?). This may lead to incorrect
> conclusions in the future (at least in terms of prefixes, since i don't
> expect traffic from those). Maybe these invalid prefixes should have
> some extra "attributes" in order to be recognized more easily while
> troubleshooting.
> 
> Note #2: In order to increase adoption of a similar policy, maybe MANRS
> should be updated to promote dropping invalids. If i'm not mistaken,
> their current action is about creating ROAs only.
> 
> --
> Tassos
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: </ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20200210/719edec3/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> End of routing-wg Digest, Vol 102, Issue 3
> ******************************************