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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Sat, 06 May 2017 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 441C2129432 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 8OEXVTgouF6I for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ED26128616 for <bess@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id g49so23050659uaa.1 for <bess@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 May 2017 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=34vfjUqCs0gK7BO0ELDHABntz++3ym7GQeYOt5tC6wo=; b=f5U3ucE/pNmIRrieUtM04o+2yzH1J1EGZdZG8OkGkbiMg+KsfySQQ4aGSlG1473awH Vhjg/+1effuv2bukR3htAV/7cC7lMDKZyLbjxSY3KJkjG7rQ0MQnsTz8jdpoTR1TbGxZ yhSDCChrxN0JFsoZHI6J0AicXvM1FUoGthyoICptwjkd6Q9rrApssGW5VYcrlB+9zpGd c289udc3ImBkUIIBeU6gXxpsVeM+eoaCj1dPyE2YDe+TPTtUGU2044juXC/9t4c1UtHi 6rYcJLE3wR3lD2LicbEZFcQEDiWmeLB2nw2+DszDyMi52Mt6aV4GuGExbE/DUpPwVUo5 dulQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=34vfjUqCs0gK7BO0ELDHABntz++3ym7GQeYOt5tC6wo=; b=NpT9H/bS9Se6Fn2BRyY0YTSTmArqETJwatOklThMzDlthTj1gpYNUDYlD3V3I4wBW/ 41HmywJzzddotwCEcNuHhReGKCMg/Y426rtfZwdMc8xFqGz0ZS4JWKjppNINwF3AohdI eKJ/KdL+fbxWt/givewkXOAx1StoagRn01vjdbnG7vR9v6LyBlyIOeC1tvFHjTGWIBrD Bw7lZKHX8DZvyRFGQoH4D1Bv0G9ZomBhtPKdUxB8vIT8rN+rZvAbDkkSN1MyOGXvFkM6 SAUmdvzgUiYB6jLnN4DewTHeAvr5Lo6m7eRi2+uoV9r9qaqEagOJ1YbISQAx0P5a5w2l 5/2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6vqdfpzhNpOejq+i72bWJjYZroUR80YDmcadBnHP43eJzYkiWE TJ7aj2g6n/Rm54SjGPQ4T/ynW88GGCyz
X-Received: by 10.159.32.67 with SMTP id 61mr23309742uam.133.1494093252193; Sat, 06 May 2017 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.80.235 with HTTP; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERkVdsmcfVQ+9rA0VjBsceh10nCegwvoSuR_A9E-8fZn2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+b+ERkVdsmcfVQ+9rA0VjBsceh10nCegwvoSuR_A9E-8fZn2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 13:53:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJUkWp+np=1dD__5mkoHnscVP6eWmYGA5CE7gHtQ7pruw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject.all@ietf.org
Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/tNR1Bs1Hdzc4_nF-SFakd-WZ2cw>
Subject: Re: [bess] 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: Sat, 06 May 2017 17:54:17 -0000

[ + 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'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
>
>



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf