>> When we (as7018) were preparing to begin dropping invalid routes >> received from peers earlier this year, that is exactly the kind of >> analysis we did. In our case we rolled our own with a two-pass >> process: we first found all the traffic to/from invalid routes by a >> bgp community we gave them, then outside of our flow analysis tool we >> further filtered the traffic for invalid routes which were covered by >> less-specific not-invalid routes. What remained was the traffic we >> would lose once invalid routes were dropped. Had the pmacct >> capability existed at that time, we would have used it. > > We (NIST) did a detailed analysis of Invalid routes (with Routeviews data) > that was presented at IETF 101: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-sidrops-origin-validation-policy-considerations-for-dropping-invalid-routes-00 > See slides 10-13. We tried to drill down on Invalid routes which were covered > by > less-specific not-invalid routes. We examined questions like: > how often does the less-specific route have the same origin AS (OAS) as the > Invalid, > and, if not, then how frequently is the OAS of the less specific route > a transit provider of the OAS of the Invalid route? > We plan to update the results periodically.
Daniele Iamartino, Cristel Pelsser, Randy Bush. "Measuring BGP Route Origin Registration and Validation," PAM 2015. https://archive.psg.com//141223.route-origin-pam2015.pdf https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/103-route-origin-validation.pdf
