On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 14:00, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, also, possibly the output path on the session(s) here is not > filtering in an OV fashion.
ROV belongs on the input path, let's not ROV on the output towards customers / route collectors. Announcing bigger, ROV valid/unkown aggregates, while really routing based on possibly ROV-invalid more specifics in the FIB is akin to actively obscuring routing security, "cheating" your way to a RAS. Yes, there are some very specific situations where output ROV is beneficial (a peering box not supporting ROV and you ask your peer to ROV their output), but let's not normalize ROV on the output path. Thanks, Lukas
