Re: [Sidrops] Call for SIDROPS WG Agenda Items

[Tim Bruijnzeels <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 12 Jul 2018, at 09:16, Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alexander Azimov wrote on 11/07/2018 16:36:
> [...]
>> We can consider adding additional state 'unknown' or 'partial valid'. It
>> will have similar semantics to 'unknown' output of ROA validation
>> procedure. But as you know, the current practices are focussing on
>> dropping 'invalid' routes, there is no difference in processing
>> 'unknown' and 'valid' routes. 
> 
> Yes, and calling the "unknown" "valid" does not solve that problem :).
> 
> You have already defined "unverifiable", which has the same meaning as
> "unknown". I just do not see much difference between gaps in the ASPA
> chain and the presence of AS_TRANS.

It’s this paragraph in section 5 that threw me off a bit:

   If the output of the AS_PATH verification procedure is 'unverifiable'
   it means that AS_PATH can't be fully verified.  Such routes should be
   treated with caution and MAY be processed the same way as "invalid"
   routes.

'MAY be processed the same way as  “invalid” routes’ indicates a local choice, which is fine I believe. But, under partial deployment this can lead to routes being dropped a little too aggressively, no? Reading your comments in the email thread the advice during partial deployment would be to accept, rather than drop, right?






> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrei
>