Re: [Sidrops] New Version Notification for draft-sriram-sidrops-drop-invalid-policy-00.txt

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:25:36PM +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
> I think this addresses a concern that blocks uptake for transit
> networks in particular. So I am happy to see discussion on this, and
> hope that actual operators will speak to this. Hey Job, glad you did
> :)
> 
> One remark on the content.. would it make sense to have a different
> treatment in case an AS0 ROA is issued? I.e. in case an announcement
> is invalid due to AS0 and there is no valid announcement (there can’t
> be) - still drop it?

Aside from complications related to AS 0 (it being an unroutable ASN) -
there is another type of prefixes where INVALID announcements should
never be accepted: IXP Peering LAN prefixes.

Take as example the DE-CIX Peering LAN prefix (taken from
https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/31) - it is not really globally reachable,
and that is the intention. What we see here though that some folks carry
it in their IGP http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_detail/lg01/ipv4?q=80.81.192.0
and seem to advertise it by accident to this collector.

These accidental announcements shouldn't be accepted, ever. This is the
ROA: http://localcert.ripe.net:8088/roas?q=80.81.192.0 - with the
current DSIR idea they _would_ be accepted if I am not mistaken.

DE-CIX is not announcing the peering lan prefix for various operational
reasons, and the ROA should help supress global visiblity, especially
the global visibility of more-specifics. More-specifics of the peering lan
are disastrous for IXPs.

Kind regards,

Job