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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

​Hi Job,​



> Did you review Alvaro's suggested changes which prompted the third IDR
> consultation on this topic? They are viewable here:
>
>     http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/jaredmauch/
> draft-mauch-bgp-reject/blob/alvaro/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-
> reject-06-from-5.diff.html
>
>
Do we really have consensus among all authors of this document (leave alone
rest of IETF) that it should apply to all AFI/SAFIs ?

I personnally would recommend to apply it to only 1/1 and 2/1.

And actually even take those SAFIs your claim that it helps case of
sessions being dropped is very implementation specific ... some
implementation when receiving routes to VRF from CE may first check the
maximum-prefix number as expressed in "neighbor 10.1.1.1 maximum-prefix 30"
then check per VRF then apply say BGP prefix-list.

Does this RFC also enforces that BGP route-map or policy should be the
first consideration in BGP inbound processing ?


explicit configuration of a BGP import and export policy for any
External BGP (EBGP) session such as customers, peers, or
confederation boundaries
*​​for all enabled address families*. When this

- - -


Last ... what's your take on multiple comments regarding build in silency
of this ?

See session will be established just fine ... even incoming prefix count
will be incremented just fine.

Last time I checked until you display bgp table there is no separate
counter in any implementation to indicate in BGP summary how many out of
received paths were best path eligible.

Thx,
r.