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> Wed, 19 April 2017 23:34 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 E95BD1293E3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 o-qfBiXQflX1 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E4F3128792 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=883; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492644851; x=1493854451; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RavAoKsVh40I0+lZdgrsvxEQqH6dasJ9HSPQTM3B5Rc=; b=MAYoDbrRag7Lmzy0h6NQc87Zon8Ygv+i6t2UnNigP/DWxsSGQYjzVSH6 2ocjQ8En8GO3nsPQMfxbx4HKcWURoHzrw5Y8WADXnR2JWURY9/ovnqP8T GO2dso8n97J0JW1c/2k1XdT2Q7RRvRepS2gzJSDZeHK59vJXQg9GifqtA 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,222,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="235043699"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Apr 2017 23:34:10 +0000
Received: from [10.41.56.53] ([10.41.56.53]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3JNYAqP000577; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:34:10 GMT
To: John Scudder <jgs@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>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <2b8a94bb-4f40-6c1d-05ff-9cf11ad93646@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:34:10 -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: <AF07526F-F08B-4084-937B-A9A2D2DD2813@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AutJfHMG_bgw17Y-CBpUOTBKtvc>
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 23:34:13 -0000

John,

I had "in this case" with the statement "the default can not be changed".
The reason is that the behavior change may completely cutoff connectivity
in this case.

Thanks.  -- Enke

On 4/19/17 4:25 PM, John Scudder wrote:
> (As an individual contributor)
> 
> On Apr 19, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> the draft is conspicuously missing a “Backwards Compatibility” section.
> 
> Seriously? "Backwards compatibility" in this case is "configure your router to do what it used to", right? We need a section to say that?
> 
> I must be missing something. 
> 
> Also, to Enke's "we can't ever change our defaults" point -- there are many RFCs. Some you probably comply with. Some you probably don't. How would this be different, assuming you elect not to change your implementation to comply?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John
>