IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] [GROW] Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Wed, 19 April 2017 14:03 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 6BB64129A90; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 L_uz9CnmT-OP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CD21287A7; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:1597:31b9:6bf0:1f20] (unknown [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:1597:31b9:6bf0:1f20]) (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 6BFC5540A63; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:03:51 -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: <FD44B598-060A-406D-B2EC-1AFC177CA9F8@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:03:35 -0400
Cc: John G Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A898C59C-E82D-4423-8BFA-08FDA24132CC@puck.nether.net>
References: <27BC3D10-48EA-4751-A70A-0753B0437F8F@cisco.com> <8FA9FC06-CA1C-4738-B15A-387E2A2CE275@juniper.net> <FD44B598-060A-406D-B2EC-1AFC177CA9F8@cisco.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/3ViMQ4VaDK1m_orXV5rNQydFAAs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05
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, 19 Apr 2017 14:03:55 -0000

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> My bigger issue with 9.1.1 is that it is the first step of the decision process – the intent, as I understand it, is for the routes not to even reach that point.

I’m not in agreement here as it’s well within the power of an implementation to provide a knob to circumvent these safety knobs.  We can’t have people pretending it’s the early 90s anymore.  We must have safe implementations and defaults.

Are you saying that IOS-XR is non-compliant with 9.1.1 because it does not have “bgp unsafe-ebgp-policy” as the default?  At what point does the Cisco implementation make that decision?

We seem to be triangulating on where in the exact decision process people are considering a route feasible or ineligible, can you speak to your implementation?  That may provide guidance in documenting the IOS-XR practice.

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email