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

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

Hi Yangyang,

Thank you for the comments.  My responses are inline below.

>From: Yangyang Wang <[e-mail]> 
>Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 1:06 PM
>
>I have read this draft and support adoption.
>
>I also feel that the application of SPL needs more discussion.
>
>My comments and questions are as follows:
>
>In Table 1, the stats of ROA-ROV-state=NotFound and SPL-ROV-state=Valid will generate the state 'Eligible'. I feel that this 'Eligible' is not so Eligible and SPL may introduce potential risk easily. An AS A may insert a prefix not covered by a ROA into its SPL, but AS B is also announce this prefix and include it in its SPL. Either A or B may make a (malicious) mistake. Although the operators of AS A and B may find out what's wrong with it after negotiation, the event could have happened for a while. 

There is consensus that if the SPL-ROV state is not Invalid, then the Eligible/Ineligible decision for path selection should be the same as that based on ROA-ROV.  So, in your example, if AS B is falsely including the prefix in its SPL, the route it announces gains no advantage in path selection based on that. 

>I feel that the state SPL-ROV-state=Invalid is more credible than SPL-ROV-state=valid, because any AS does not want the prefix originated by it legally to be validated as 'invalid' and blocked. The power of SPL is as a 'invalid' filter for prefixes.

Yes, if SPL-ROV-state = Invalid, then the route is considered Ineligible regardless of the ROA-ROV state.   

>And, it seems that SPL cannot help save on ROA registration. If a prefix is requested to be included in the SPL, the appropriate ROAs also need to be registered in advance, as mentioned in 7.4, 7.2 and this recommendation should be required in 7.1 (the prefix owner may decide to split its prefix, it should register ROAs for more-specific prefixes).

Sure, we can include additional wording in Section 7.1 that says: "The AS operator must recommend the prefix owner to update its ROA (or create a ROA) to include the subsumed more-specific prefix.  Also, if the prefix owner had maintained a ROA for the announced less-specific prefix, they should be cognizant to update their ROA prior to requesting announcement of a subsumed more-specific prefix."

Sriram