IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] [GROW] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sun, 07 May 2017 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89169128C82; Sat, 6 May 2017 17:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMEvr_dQZky5; Sat, 6 May 2017 17:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC4AF128B37; Sat, 6 May 2017 17:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb.local (c-174-62-74-200.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [174.62.74.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v470lTQU058186 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 7 May 2017 00:47:29 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: nagasaki.bogus.com: Host c-174-62-74-200.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [174.62.74.200] claimed to be mb.local
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject.all@ietf.org
Cc: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
References: <CA+b+ERkVdsmcfVQ+9rA0VjBsceh10nCegwvoSuR_A9E-8fZn2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJUkWp+np=1dD__5mkoHnscVP6eWmYGA5CE7gHtQ7pruw@mail.gmail.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <dc9fdbf2-0b2a-96d7-0f0a-8f96a2e4bac4@bogus.com>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 17:47:23 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:53.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/53.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iJUkWp+np=1dD__5mkoHnscVP6eWmYGA5CE7gHtQ7pruw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8K5iJBs5AtHaHMv6o1gPQM9cjVjL8OElI"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/27dtGDAf37P0uPJ2FsUNrwu7aE8>
Subject: Re: [bess] [GROW] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 00:47:33 -0000

On 5/6/17 10:53 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> [ + authors ]
> 
> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>> Hi Warren,
>>
>>> This is clearly not unanimous/ not everyone is happy, but (in my view)
>>> there is *rough* consensus for this to progress.
>>
>>
>> The group of users of BGP which this update impacts the most are members
>> of BESS WG (cc-ed) and not IDR WG due to the fact that this proposal applies
>> to all AFI/SAFIs.

I think this statement elides that the largest impact here is on
operators, which might be participants of either working group but are
by in large not at the ietf.

As an operator the ability to make recommendations based on practice
that has proven to be problematic is ought to be something others in the
ietf would be interested in. e.g. default accept policies have been
shooting operators in the foot with v4 and v6 unicast AFI's since
literally the dawn of time.

> I'll happily admit that I have not been following BESS at all, and so
> know very little of what y'all do ("Hi Bess!"). Alvaro, please advise
> if BESS is affected to the level that they should have been explicitly
> invited to comment?
> 
>> IMO before you progress anywhere with this IETF LC BESS WG should express
>> their formal opinion on it.
>>
>> Example of in or out eBGP policy where you are sending MAC addresses in
>> EVPN AF needs to be provided and explained why it makes sense. Likewise
>> examples of RTC AF for L3VPN Inter-as needs to be discussed.
>>
>> Otherwise the group of people which defined a lot of non ISP uses of BGP may
>> be
>> suddenly surprised down the read for keeping them out of the loop and have
>> customers loosing reachability upon compliant non sequential router OS
>> upgrade.
> 
> The authors are busy incorporating some final edits (including some
> suggested by Alvaro). I would have hoped that all affected parties
> would have seen the discussions on GROW / IDR / the IETF LC.
> 
> I ask people to please withhold judgment until the new version is released.
> 
> 
> I'm about to board a plane (to Budapest), and will be out of email for
> many hours...
> W
> 
>  >
>> Cheers,
>> Robert.
> 
>>
>> REF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-06
>>
>>
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email