> > I imagine there is a some sort of coalescing industry standard out there, > but so far I can’t find it. >
There is not, and won't be for a long time, if ever. There isn't a one size fits all solution. On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 9:31 PM Tom Samplonius <t...@samplonius.org> wrote: > > In the world of IRR and RPKI, BGP route acceptance criteria is important > to get right. > > DE-CIX has published a detailed flow chart documenting their acceptance > criteria: > https://www.de-cix.net/en/locations/frankfurt/route-server-guide > > But I don’t see a lot of operators publishing their criteria. I imagine > there is a some sort of coalescing industry standard out there, but so far > I can’t find it. Of the upstreams I use, just one publishes a flowchart. > Another is basically refusing to explain anything other than they “use” IRR > and RPKI, ad that RPKI is “good”. > > I assumed that everyone implementing RPKI validation, would skip IRR > route object validation if the route is RPKI-valid. I assumed that > everyone is doing this now, or would do this when they implement RPKI > validation. But I spoke to an operator today, which still expects all > routes to pass IRR as well (and while they perform RPKI-validation, they > effectively do nothing with the result). To me, this seems like a > different direction than most operators are going. Or is it? > > The most surprising thing in the DE-DIX flow chart, was that they check > that the origin AS exists in the IRR as-set, before doing RPKI, and if the > set existence fails, they reject the route. I don’t see a problem with > this, as maintaining as-sets is easy, but it does prevent an eventual 100% > RPKI future with no IRR at all. > > I also thought there may be an informational RFC on this, but I couldn’t > find anything. Has there been anything published or any presentations > given, on generally accepted BGP route acceptance criteria? > > > Tom
