Re: Generally accepted BGP acceptance criteria?

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> 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 <tom () 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