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 <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 02:58:58PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 4/19/17, 7:25 PM, "John Scudder" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >(As an individual contributor)
> > >
> > >On Apr 19, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> the draft is conspicuously missing a “Backwards Compatibility” section.
> > >
> > >Seriously? "Backwards compatibility" in this case is "configure your
> > >router to do what it used to", right? We need a section to say that?
> >
> > Anytime one proposes to change the default behavior of a decades old
> > protocol to be more restrictive, I would expect this to be discussed.
> >
> 
> a few times in this discussion people say: "the protocol", but the draft
> doesn't propose changing the protocol, it proposes that implementations
> stop being wide-open with respect to send/receive conditioning/filtering.
> 
> There's no default behavior change in the protocol (which I think doesn't
> really talk about filtering prefixes at all, not in the sense of
> 'prefix-list foo in' anyway).

Alvaro suggested to update the 4271 text to give clear guidance to
implementors on how this works.

A preview of the forth coming new version of the document is available
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

We'll be posting a new version tomorrow or so.

Kind regards,

Job