[routing-wg] adding a RPKI indicator to RIPEstat's prefix consistency widget?

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Christian Teuschel wrote:

> Hi Nusenu,
>
> Thanks for the kind words, hearing from users that RIPEstat is useful is
> the best motivation for us :)

Christian, All,

RIPEstat is remarkably useful!!!


> Yes, there will be an addition highlighting the RPKI status to the
> Prefix Routing Consistency widget and probably to other widgets as well.
> In which form this will be realized is tbd but I will definitely take
> your suggestions into account.

Great news!

Keep up the good work!

Cheers,
Carlos


> A requirement for these extensions will be to move the RPKI validation
> data call [0] from development to production-grade, which will happen as
> soon as the backend is ready to support a wide adoption by users. I hope
> this to be done before the next RIPE meeting.
>
> All the best,
> Christian
>
> [0] https://stat.ripe.net/docs/data_api#RPKI
> [3]
> https://stat.ripe.net/data/rpki-validation/data.json?resource=3333&prefix=193.0.0.0/21
>
>
> On 25/09/2018 23:46, nusenu wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> I really like the prefix-routing-consistency widget [1],
>> thanks for creating it.
>>
>> I find it very useful when sending around URLs to point out certain prefix properties
>> (i.e. announcement not matching IRR entry) and would see an additional RPKI related
>> use-case for that widget (to have it in one place).
>>
>> What do you think about adding indicators for:
>> - prefix is covered by a ROA and valid (green) - (mouseover could show the root CA)
>> - prefix is not covered by a ROA (grey)
>> - prefix is covered by a ROA, but invalid (red) - (mousover could show the invalid reason and ROA info)
>> - an indicator for "is this prefix reachable?" in a ROV environment (yes = green, no = red)
>>
>> that would to some extend be possibly covered with the rpki-validation data call already available
>> https://stat.ripe.net/docs/data_api#RPKI
>>
>> I think this would be very helpful when contacting network operators about their broken ROAs
>> because most trust what they see on RIPEstat :)
>>
>> Ideally that would also work on an AS level as has been suggested before [2] but either is fine.
>>
>>
>> kind regards,
>> nusenu
>>
>>
>> [1] https://stat.ripe.net/widget/prefix-routing-consistency
>> [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2018-May/003513.html
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Christian Teuschel | Human behind RIPEstat
> Follow me on Twitter: @NCC_RIPEstat
>
>