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

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <enkechen@cisco.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 24D0513150E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 h6dRmeWfJR9d for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27ED413150A for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2046; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492713800; x=1493923400; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LQiP8iSgoRzCU+NQRsL1snB8o1n1l957DRuB1UyGvt0=; b=SEfMysLTNKF0p2pbziH3h9jB5vZpWs37jBYDLhDk2B96+avAPsOi7Rc4 tbtdxHSS/da+kACD9VX7OlXcbzOC1CDuHFYBVjle2VO2+4JAGPrE/Y/FO jbTgRkUksyxcQi1/z7k/gFItRSTTdddcSwT7bTZhE7IkrdRrOUXvh4ao2 g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,225,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="415265558"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Apr 2017 18:43:19 +0000
Received: from [10.24.16.81] ([10.24.16.81]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3KIhHnX004359; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:43:17 GMT
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.Nether.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <68B29403-9AD9-4F06-9FE4-3F077E793D9F@puck.nether.net> <275cf744-1f64-bcbc-dabe-a47479921230@cisco.com> <20170420154142.lacvtplusepy3qcf@hanna.meerval.net> <b57162ec-f806-6e86-7713-58608f72c468@cisco.com> <20170420160736.GB15676@puck.nether.net>
Cc: aretana@cisco.com, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <f2b9f4e6-a937-cd4b-82d7-620778a5bc70@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:43:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170420160736.GB15676@puck.nether.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6dgYC9YDVEbpMR4m4NgXweILpYc>
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:43:25 -0000

Jared,

Also to be clear, I do not question your intentions.  Just the contrary, I understand
the operational issue and the proposal, and I am fine for it to be a BCP.

My question is about the "proposed standard" track and also the mandate for changing
the default behavior in the code.

Regards, -- Enke

On 4/20/17 9:07 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:57:07AM -0700, Enke Chen wrote:
>> Job,
>>
>> It depends on the customer base and also how long the software has been deployed.
>> Just think about the scenario that a large number of customers would lose network
>> connectivity unexpectedly due to a default behavior change in the code. Such outages
>> could keep happening to different customers for years to come.
>>
>> Perhaps, changing "impossible" to "impractical" :-)
> 
> 	I'd like to call it well-considered. :-)
> 
> 	I'm operating a network with Juniper, NX-OS, IOS-XR, IOS-Classic, IOS-XE,
> and various implementations that require custom policy to be implemented.
> 
> 	There can be a path forward plotted that would prevent currently
> deployed people from having issues, we're surely bright enough to do that.
> 
> 	To make it clear: I don't want to break someones routers.
> 
> 	I do want to make it harder for someone to leak a table when they
> have a new router.
> 
> 	I don't belive the bar should be high, it can be embedded in whatever
> configuration/ZTP/automation/cut+paste template out there.  It could come
> in the form of yang over netconf, or a DHCPv6/DHCPv4 option.  It could
> come from a TXT record in DNS, or wahtever configuration method the vendor
> invents that is new and unimagined by th WG today.
> 
> 	I don't feel it requires updating 4271 to attain that goal, it's
> clear implementors have seen a path to do this today without having
> a concern with 4271, and I believe that Alvaro is wrong in the presumption
> this document updates 4271.  (I'm also willing to be told that I'm too rough
> for consensus :-).
> 
> 	- Jared
>