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

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8729A12EB96 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] 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 Zf5DMg9LqgzY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) (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 7E93412EBAA for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w50so7826911wrc.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=4E7vukhX1ZArMKxuZt6k9EIpWhvdacVtVvvOCbbJJhU=; b=WLTWvfx+Bo9MIy4b8oRfRyIa6Ub9WVaYkQzfMYGiQXZjvc4j8j9FskHTY5DM5a5kUz OCZageRQ6nbQ9urHzK3R0dDbJaneRjB0qo45sDndTswSZj1pK/uqO3FRilJA6VjadI2D wCZePau4eunrAKheNKmmgrbm9jvbEdJ4XtbZr/tWdAc2ox5qrF7M13xXeU2LOr8e7Elq 8wrC6+wHwdO5FHrXKEoJJe55TzemkUe/CgZWHqZ2xYAlmlToE/TgjPnq02RWizbp7uRd HmeGPBq0svHm1O+IXZkFDP6kvcevzSYdMM6oANDqK3j5uJSO1yp1adokDOVKDBhfyMeG RuOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7xTgy8IMru9GKE5tYNakRH1sBqSfj4eJn/U7Wx4t7vLjrRG1vC KVmp/zoxkk7mWg==
X-Received: by 10.223.138.178 with SMTP id y47mr7133309wry.22.1492679136924; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:4cc4:bdef:de0c:32e0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u145sm22802598wmu.1.2017.04.20.02.05.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:05:35 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: <20170420090535.cfxn5tbhns5bszvf@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnRz8BEO3mb1fnsDPoiL6Wxjdfw9vQPbyODNEa+xCJdnw@mail.gmail.com> <D51D67E4.A9782%acee@cisco.com> <AF07526F-F08B-4084-937B-A9A2D2DD2813@juniper.net> <CA+b+ERnRbAG_WSppAVkWETL0zjeppmm9fwqRu8DV24Hcdihqiw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnRbAG_WSppAVkWETL0zjeppmm9fwqRu8DV24Hcdihqiw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-3JwwWj1MmnVH_eM4rullRzXqB8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 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: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:05:40 -0000

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 01:30:13AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> ​John,
> 
> ​> ​
> How would this be different, assuming you elect not to change your
> implementation to comply?
> 
> ​Well if we are to standardize by rough consensus a RFC which we already
> know is not going to be ​honored for the reasons clearly stated what are we
> gaining ?
> 
> BGP implementations which support inbound policy to accept any routes will
> continue doing so .. and those which do not also will continue not to do
> so.
> 
> So what is the point ?

Although I do not share your pessimistic view on what can and can't be
done, at the very least it will provide guidance for new BGP
implementations. 

Kind regards,

Job