An agreed community value to signify test invalid prefixes would help. Maybe a ripe doc (399 or 706) could be updated? Maybe a discussion point for next meeting.
Tony > On 10 Feb 2020, at 11:00, [email protected] wrote: > > Send routing-wg mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/routing-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of routing-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RPKI: Forthnet drops invalids (Tassos Chatzithomaoglou) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:25:08 +0200 > From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <[email protected]> > To: RIPE Routing Working Group <[email protected]> > Subject: [routing-wg] RPKI: Forthnet drops invalids > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi to everyone, > > I would like to inform you that it's been almost one month since > Forthnet started dropping invalid prefixes on all peering/transit links, > either national or international. It's important to note that during > this month we haven't received any complaints. > > Having monitored the invalid prefixes for more than a year and > experimenting with routing them across different links, we decided that > it was time to move to the next phase and start dropping prefixes that > are declared as invalid in the RPKI ecosystem. > > Two were the main reasons that helped us take the drop decision: a) > during the last year our volume of invalid prefixes traffic decreased > from ~1% of total traffic to less than 0,2%, b) we updated our prefix > validation policy by including a whitelist (until we evaluate SLURM) in > order to bypass issues quickly if/when they arise. > > Note #1: in the context of the above actions we have noticed that > invalid prefixes used for testing purposes have recently begun to grow > (each large provider creates one?). This may lead to incorrect > conclusions in the future (at least in terms of prefixes, since i don't > expect traffic from those). Maybe these invalid prefixes should have > some extra "attributes" in order to be recognized more easily while > troubleshooting. > > Note #2: In order to increase adoption of a similar policy, maybe MANRS > should be updated to promote dropping invalids. If i'm not mistaken, > their current action is about creating ROAs only. > > -- > Tassos > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20200210/719edec3/attachment-0001.html> > > End of routing-wg Digest, Vol 102, Issue 3 > ******************************************
