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

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Fri, 21 April 2017 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.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 A38EF12954B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 c1aDfaip1YCu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB775129535 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id m123so20509180wma.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dd5oGnV8GdGgZd633CIky7JKJO7ezINhW6i82ufdLqo=; b=1dAEh65Qm0ievvd1vq9ROFzu4iSrt5PV7YKm5tHSi1tH+leZC2qbD7RF51FVD7bYQz hO8TwJ96UErwg/g6V8xZye4h2RBXy2DY8ZQK9/HzWR/fkJUNxBjeabQxznFzVQC37MuE uU6Djrcc5BV/0C+M3md7kWH4jCGHxW3WUEQhLI+12K9Ld+V6gPxtyCzOA0r9MpDtqr6D in91UbPqZmcBa9MUXKc66wRltnt++1fcGaGtJiiAlayjT1N0tb1TYBSBATg7oMeCRw1G F97Uyo+iw6KaZEPlQZab6/FogfB7/JTACEIUdBTjA1uy3yl1IZ3GNHzzwzbmqtppQmFt jUHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dd5oGnV8GdGgZd633CIky7JKJO7ezINhW6i82ufdLqo=; b=kIQBeQSEVSBOiacMxgA256wH0D95Z9wydfxOlIB8Km3vwVi5FGafhJ5rPlckO1ug0E cuRCJiCDAXPecGr4ENxIos1JdN0VK+WNwtkI/kMK9LT/vnR+nFlG70TU6iUN9Evcf2E6 KKkyDkGdCDXn39PQnFwVapV9gDA1dr6KPdTo1ApTfy7yEJPfCKC5WI/frVUkNa0rAUm7 v1vjo/C8x2QU6IQi5N43B8shn/Ed/lrVPAWk/XxbDdM2mKJ03RCZtM/4aLWJbCxQWLGE G0eEKq5qB+2CGCqmGJ8NKgkrLbCZXudgoe1dE1+fKx5mzoD0Kv8tntwJtbQVTp5dsA4z t4kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/50ReOSL78ggYh8tl9gB4w2+OkitLZVBfBzSa0RfROcBSEpTXTy QNILH0KSEwqjnQ==
X-Received: by 10.80.159.175 with SMTP id c44mr65562edf.45.1492789586171; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:154d:67d1:53a6:3be]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s40sm502880edd.42.2017.04.21.08.46.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:46:24 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170421154624.fxbtupcnthdmls3t@Vurt.local>
References: <CAH1iCirf=ha1mrw8EUzPp34R-DF=4J+=aFyMwVn2udi1UKNifw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hMPYcwbNhHtuWKWUXb4Lg3x81p786yLqeNEHFV1okGRvg@mail.gmail.com> <dc04fe80-f844-29b1-2676-8f2bbda0ecbe@juniper.net> <28014_1492762849_58F9C0E0_28014_6541_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CC3773@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20170421090145.f5yuhimb4qg7knrf@Vurt.local> <19977_1492775899_58F9F3DB_19977_3102_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CC3DAC@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20170421124011.mdxpyoijvfh7eus4@Vurt.local> <1334_1492785121_58FA17E1_1334_3109_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CC4307@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CA+b+ERn1vX_b20CGyNbck+_Gm0Dt=fqnxqWzdqHmHiPKNTWD_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20170421153741.GT25069@Space.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170421153741.GT25069@Space.Net>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KD4VhvWXbKp4V0H7_dwJ3_O87Es>
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:46:30 -0000

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 05:37:41PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 05:19:28PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Are we really that bad in Internet NOCs ? Do we need configuration
> > enforcement and RFCs like this ?
> 
> Yes, and yes.
> 
> Even if I cannot discern whether this was meant as rhetoric questions
> - the answer is still yes.  If you assume that 40.000 of those ASes
> have noone on-site who has any idea how BGP works, you are likely
> still too optimistic about the level of understanding out there.

Instead of blaming operators, I prefer we assign some work items to
vendors to motivate them to improve their software rather then acept
this scorn. I'd be careful to indulge Robert in his blatant disrespect
for the operational side of the internet.

So perhaps we can rephrase the rethorical question "Are we really that
bad in Internet NOCs" into "Are NOCs forced to work with poor user
interfaces, inconsistency across implementations, and insecure defaults?"
- Yes, they are. Vendors would do well to take same ownership.

Kind regards,

Job