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 <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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