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

[gengnan <[e-mail]>]

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

From: Keyur Patel <keyur=[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 12:33 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Sidrops] Re: WG Adoption call for draft-sriram-sidrops-spl-verification - ENDS 06/03/2024 (June 3 2024)

Apologies. The call will end on June 3rd, 2024.

Best Regards,
Chris, Russ & Keyur

From: Keyur Patel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, May 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: WG Adoption call for draft-sriram-sidrops-spl-verification - ENDS 05/03/2024 (May 3 2024)

Hi Folks,

The authors have requested SIDROPS working group adoption call of  “Signed Prefix List (SPL) Based Route Origin Verification and Operational Considerations” https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sriram-sidrops-spl-verification-00.

Please send your comments to the list. The adoption call will end on May 3rd, 2024.

Best Regards,
Chris, Russ & Keyur