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 <> Thu, 20 April 2017 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D0513150E for <>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h6dRmeWfJR9d for <>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27ED413150A for <>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Apr 2017 18:43:19 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3KIhHnX004359; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:43:17 GMT
To: Jared Mauch <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Cc:, Job Snijders <>, Hares Susan <>,, Enke Chen <>
From: Enke Chen <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:43:25 -0000


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