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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 26 April 2017 04:39 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 BF89A1201F8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 8n65Rv_UJjp2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 AD88A120046 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BAD14A3; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:39:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1493181565; bh=9ag97HxerraIUGnDyOm5YSZuUFKI70j4O1KxblBJR5M=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=MNU9nUAbR8OX8o9LnG45bUn8UYAaxkSE1HcF5c5J+dbDtkTlVb3wsww7FFJyEcTbe szSfMwiZ+pJ6odqAhJwHKJFEfq5NlPy7nqlcL9syZIlCdCl702DQsPNQWo35pTx/M9 x4pe+pnNswNONYl0CJ3VqgCAQ19MODNv93MyjQIs=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B756BA2; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:39:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:39:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
cc: bruno.decraene@orange.com, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <025501d2bdd6$4a31e2c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1704260636130.5591@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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> <D51D6AD2.A9795%acee@cisco.com> <CAL9jLaa1UQ5A1FwRKVw5RJCBQO+0j0BW4vUNaPXHB0_JB0j76Q@mail.gmail.com> <1058_1493105140_58FEF9F4_1058_786_3_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CCAD43@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1704250930500.5591@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20393_1493106881_58FF00C1_20393_19903_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CCAEB1@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <025501d2bdd6$4a31e2c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1b_VLd74bSupKPvFJ90XgeRaGKM>
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:39:32 -0000

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, t.petch wrote:

> The current text in RFC 4271 is
> "    If the route is learned from an external peer, then the local BGP
>      speaker computes the degree of preference based on preconfigured
>      policy information.  If the return value indicates the route is
>      ineligible, the route .. "
>
> With this I-D, that becomes
>
> "    If the route is learned from an external peer, then the local BGP
>      speaker computes the degree of preference based on preconfigured
>      policy information.
>
>      If there is no preconfigured policy information, the route is
> ineligible.
>
>                                    If the return value indicates the
> route is
>      ineligible, the route ... "
>
> I think that that is a change that will change what is then transmitted
> on the wire so it is a protocol change.  YMMV.

If you're blackbox-testing a device with this change, you can't tell if 
it's a changed default or if it's got a policy that denies all. There is 
nothing in the on-wire format that has changed. There is nothing changed 
in how the BGP messages are handled in any way, as opposed to a configured 
default DENY-ALL policy in/out.

So I don't see it as a protocol change. It's a default policy change, but 
not a protocol change.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se