[Sidrops] Re: WG Adoption call for draft-sriram-sidrops-spl-verification - ENDS 06/03/2024 (June 3 2024)

["Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nan,

Thank you for the review and comments.

>IMO: My concern is SPL+ROA for ROV makes the operations more complex. When an AS wants to announce a new prefix, it is needed to make sure that the new prefix is added in the AS’s SPL and the owner of the new prefix has updated/created the ROA for the prefix (especially the owner has created ROA for the prefix). Otherwise, the route of the new prefix may be rejected in some place. SPL object registration and ROA object registration are not completely independent, because the function of them has overlaps and both of them affect validation results.

I think we have described this scenario well and made suitable recommendations in Sec. 7.2.  Of course, the wording can be improved with suggestions from you and others.

Note that the new prefix announcement will not be considered ineligible if the AS has included the prefix in its SPL, independent of whether the prefix owner has modified their ROA to include the new prefix or not (assuming that the “new prefix” has no existing covering ROA – there are separate recommendations for that case).  So, the draft recommends the AS operator to update its SPL object and allow some delay (before announcing) “until the updated SPL has propagated to RPs throughout the Internet”.  Again, we are open to improving the wording as the work progresses.

Sriram
==========================

From: gengnan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2024 7:27 AM
To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[e-mail]>; Keyur Patel <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: WG Adoption call for draft-sriram-sidrops-spl-verification - ENDS 06/03/2024 (June 3 2024)

Hi,

Support the adoption. But some more discussions may be needed.

In the draft:
“If either the route's SPL-ROV-state or ROA-ROV-state = Invalid (Section 4), then the route SHOULD be considered ineligible for route selection”.
“The AS operator SHOULD recommend the prefix owner to create a ROA for the new prefix. The AS operator MUST update its SPL to add the new prefix.”

IMO: My concern is SPL+ROA for ROV makes the operations more complex. When an AS wants to announce a new prefix, it is needed to make sure that the new prefix is added in the AS’s SPL and the owner of the new prefix has updated/created the ROA for the prefix (especially the owner has created ROA for the prefix). Otherwise, the route of the new prefix may be rejected in some place. SPL object registration and ROA object registration are not completely independent, because the function of them has overlaps and both of them affect validation results.

Best,
Nan