[OPSAWG]Re: Request Comments on draft-liu-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-pov-01

[Zhanghaiyang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yisong and co-authors,

Thank you for the update on this draft and for aligning the validation state code points with RFC 8097. The revisions clarify the scope of the reported state and operational considerations, which are valuable for practical deployment.

I have one question regarding the monitoring coverage of the proposed IPFIX IE:

The draft states that the IE is intended for reporting the RPKI validation state of active routes (e.g., routes installed in the LocRIB). However, RFC 8097 defines the RPKI validation state as an Extended Community attached to BGP route attributes, which could apply to all received BGP routes—including inactive or backup paths. Could you elaborate on why the draft chooses to focus solely on active routes rather than all BGP routes?

Understanding this design choice would help clarify potential monitoring gaps—for example, whether invalid routes that are not currently active (but might become active during failover) would be missed by this IE. Would it be feasible or advisable to extend the IE’s scope to cover all BGP routes, or are there operational or architectural constraints that justify the current approach (active routes)?

Thank you for your work on this draft, and I look forward to your insights.

Best regards,

Haiyang


发件人: Yisong Liu <[e-mail]>
发送时间: 2026年6月17日 15:55
收件人: opsawg <[e-mail]>
抄送: draft-liu-opsawg-ipf <[e-mail]>
主题: [OPSAWG]Request Comments on draft-liu-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-pov-01


温馨提示： 此邮件来自公司外部，请核实发件人信息，慎点链接与附件。This is an external email. Please verify the sender's information and proceed with caution when clicking links or downloading attachments.


Dear WG,


The draft defines a new IPFIX Information Element for monitoring RPKI-based BGP Prefix Origin Validation states (valid, invalid, not-found). This enables network operators to collect and analyze validation states across their infrastructure, facilitating detection of potential route hijacks and improving network observability and security .

The -01 revision aligns the validation state code points with RFC 8097, removes the "not enabled" state and reserved bits, and clarifies that the reported state is derived from the LocRIB and adds the description of operational considerations section .

We would like to thank Jeff and Chongfeng for their insightful comments and suggestions on the previous version.

We look forward to further reviews and discussions.

Best Regards
Yisong on behalf of co-authors





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。
禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。
如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited.
If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!