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

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.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 E4B2C13144F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 AOaRzPKYGeOh for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E9A120227 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:25c2:4c02:5849:c73d] (unknown [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:25c2:4c02:5849:c73d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4F39540B76; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <D95C67A4-AEBF-400B-A360-61C342FD6E4A@arrcus.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:33:44 -0400
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, John G Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DFD12A2C-ED40-4550-A65F-22322CFDEEBC@puck.nether.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <9047A5A0-ED12-43C2-B2C5-D2A71CBB4373@arrcus.com> <D51D46A7.A9732%acee@cisco.com> <0A49219D-E721-4DA8-B9BF-A55C2FA36FBE@puck.nether.net> <D95C67A4-AEBF-400B-A360-61C342FD6E4A@arrcus.com>
To: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-YN5g9t3CRHG669ZH_ArJbRce24>
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 13:34:06 -0000

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>; wrote:
> 
> And that would be good enough if that would allow exemptions of DC networks and any other networks that may need exemption.

I’m not sure what makes DC networks unique to be exempt from adding a one line policy to their configuration, this is a very low bar similar to configuring a hostname or AAA authentication that a DC network would have come from their ZTP/automation.

I find this incredibly worrisome thinking, next we will have an exemption for government run networks to what end?

- Jared