Re: [Sidrops] [routing-wg] misconceptions about ROV

> On 22 Feb 2022, at 09:51, Di Ma <madi@juicybun.cn> wrote:
> 
> Tim,
> 
> It seems to be a good idea to do signaling and have a sort of signed object for policy indicator :-)

I think we need a model where we can have valid/invalid/not-found (or equivalent) for paths.

Then we people can turn validation on with much less risk, and people can start implementing
BGPSec on their routers independently with more immediate (albeit initially small) benefit.

If and how we can get there is another matter. Perhaps a signed policy indicator (presence of
router certs?) will help, but it may not be enough.

Note that all this is orthogonal to ASPA. ASPA essentially says whether paths are plausible,
and BGPSec (valid path) says what actually happened. Though if ASPA informs that an adjacency
is invalid then this could perhaps be valuable input to BGPSec path validation with regards
to downgrade detection.

Tim

> 
> Di
> 
>> 
>> All that said, if we could have a constructive discussion about solving
>> the BGPSec deployment challenges then I would welcome it very much. Perhaps,
>> it would be possible to signal (with signed objects in the RPKI) when
>> BGPSec is applicable - and when a downgrade has happened.. somehow? No, I
>> don't have the answer but we may want to put our minds together.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> 
>>> randy
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sidrops mailing list
>>> Sidrops@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sidrops mailing list
>> Sidrops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops