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

Joe Provo <jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net> Wed, 26 April 2017 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.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 83D86129487 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:45:15 -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 lwoIEJoEyA7o for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sidehack.sat.gweep.net (sidehack.sat.gweep.net [72.93.233.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B8D5126B71 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25904 invoked by uid 524); 26 Apr 2017 19:44:09 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:44:09 -0400
From: Joe Provo <jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Message-ID: <20170426234408.GA36142@gweep.net>
Reply-To: jzp-idr@rsuc.gweep.net
References: <20170425221104.GS30063@pfrc.org> <023e01d2be72$031ac180$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20170426095547.GP25069@Space.Net> <CA+b+ERk4FxB4KQ3N0xtjV6uaQptd=EGKdpbKcpoL2TH41fVSYg@mail.gmail.com> <20170426113954.GA18318@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ER=Ej7G1EEOQ7uBU-z7LeBAGNSfPkE5yGmo+z52ncKhVdg@mail.gmail.com> <20170426125417.GU25069@Space.Net> <CA+b+ERm1iDv3+GNk+N_gqjDWsd+E4QjmfhmwDN4vQVQVZ1EMpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaabkYUO+7jsRbfZg1fXXLHXaWr88AxGyNF+AVTLquyxTQ@mail.gmail.com> <25665E85-FF15-48FA-BF24-DB0EDB882EEB@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <25665E85-FF15-48FA-BF24-DB0EDB882EEB@juniper.net>
X-PGP-Key: http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt
X-Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions."
Organization: RSUC - Hello to all my friends in domestic surveillance!
X-Do-Not-Email-Here: jzp@suespammers.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4kYDDorwIL9RFm1z4MKTf6_D53Q>
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 23:45:15 -0000

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:02:59AM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote:
> #include individual_contributor_disclaimer
> 
> On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > 'why not do it more!' has lots of reasons in both directions, but really that's not the point of this draft anyway.
> 
> Seems that way to me, too. 
> 
> AFAICT:
> 
> - bgp-reject is a case of trying to patch one special case, but
>   an important special case. If the special case is important enough,
>   the cost/benefit analysis works out.
> - Perfect is often the enemy of good.
> - The case Robert has just raised ("it's difficult for providers
>   to filter their customers") is EXACTLY WHY bgp-reject exists, to
>   put the onus on the customer to configure a filter.
> - Putting all our eggs in the basket of "perfect filtering by
>   providers" is known from experience to be imprudent (see also:
>   BCP-38).

This.

My initial thought was why are we still talking about this as 
if it were academic? It was a good idea when the first version 
floated in 2015 and it is an even better idea with two more 
years of operational damage and instability to the global 
Internet.

Won't you think of the packets?  For the low cost of a default
change, we can get ahead of the misery of users when their 
packets are misrouted by fail-open policies. Let's help them
find the best path to their dst. 

-- 
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling