IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 19 April 2017 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
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 A0D0212EAB4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 DQvYU99H6zyV for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC5412EAB1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k87so42780872ioi.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=UTt2m4nSejVk0Lh2ene+eh6d3y41+kRgN8i5C26ndfs=; b=ozrM73ET696JeFy5rpRyFdxbuvZuUGFDi+ibxeGWCnLezPsarXbZTq5AsqDa9A+P5a OBKCnuTztY/6lQ62JY77weIvTa0z56z0J2YP4K5PCj0orme9Q+jq96QtlztJ1INO/ZZc yDO6WOoVEduPZZ8zRJFMtko4+w7imHFmthRlZy35pAbfj3OhFsNOAceq1vnIRgqPJD33 FfSbCgrpQ7+1MVUOjkqT/R1sFtW4d9OApIoMQgDsQHxyjTPbLvqm5BLqmVFN2QencUnq oojWrtAfyAQso1HO4cJ66i9lmXAT3NQWgtFyS5ISWQ+lja8op/RNwyo3DNnDv+V4XJu1 awjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UTt2m4nSejVk0Lh2ene+eh6d3y41+kRgN8i5C26ndfs=; b=TRhhk3Su99Yawi0aBUpwMsS0pdEMg3ePaH/LS65uMhxrnT+POU+UkfvjP0NJPEdxEp UJjb1kvR5gNyU/Zf3kSotI5kvpy3JRLegMa56Bgvlgdez7nxO0sgZaCL2RvJjzb8kgvK +H0J3hxyunXaBjf9gPQPgRRQ9Z3nKJ/a3fs6Daur9ryxS/9NLr5a54Nad2CPsBK0VMRu 61uz16wew8SxgBtibYhb7wm9lvFfdb0p/uoy9aELvpzVDztcJ1bZ/tCONMvhgGzqRclU 1uhxMXDxnd6x+Mj6bi3jwjq9qY/rerutZXdOVmRnomSefQbg2nsRtlQf53I1gjfxcriN yFQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7cRgTIZIfn8ZqkeUh3l97+Nz5GG7bO0yEgkNEaNrs9j1PiBKou AhRJbWNlWcJdI+1NPKT1Tfc14jguWVo/
X-Received: by 10.36.48.149 with SMTP id q143mr616817itq.25.1492644614053; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.170.4 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AF07526F-F08B-4084-937B-A9A2D2DD2813@juniper.net>
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>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 01:30:13 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: h1g2AqMKqYPPMny0tPVl6HNnM-M
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnRbAG_WSppAVkWETL0zjeppmm9fwqRu8DV24Hcdihqiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140b160ff312b054d8d67ca"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/3dt5pZ4diZcHLuAgB5aLzcwlSzw>
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, 19 Apr 2017 23:30:16 -0000

​John,

​> ​
How would this be different, assuming you elect not to change your
implementation to comply?

​Well if we are to standardize by rough consensus a RFC which we already
know is not going to be ​honored for the reasons clearly stated what are we
gaining ?

BGP implementations which support inbound policy to accept any routes will
continue doing so .. and those which do not also will continue not to do
so.

So what is the point ?

Thx,
r.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email