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

I think for a provider that starts dropping invalids, it would make its
life easier (*) to know in advance for what prefixes to skip processing
(monitor traffic, contact owner, etc).

(*): Assuming providers have test prefixes to spare and these get
increased over time...

Job Snijders wrote on 10/2/2020 16:42:
> Why do we suspect there are many of them? And whether they are beacons
> or not, why treat them any different? Wouldn’t that defeat the
> purpose? :-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job

Tony Barber wrote on 10/2/2020 16:40:
> 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 

I had something else in my mind, something to be originated from the
validation software, after it has been somehow stamped in the RIR's db.

--
Tassos

>
>> 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
>> ******************************************
>