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@ntt.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 09:35 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 8075C12EBDC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 RhiL3e5UZMz1 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) (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 476E112EBDB for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w64so99161504wma.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
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=NAUFKKkK1IfpjOsknbVKx0VaTrN0Q62ddDoo5vupb58=; b=jWO81wbpmNfNMwFJHmh+CTJnrotI/nmPrntNeXVUc2Twkdn3nGwZ2boa6LSUpnPC1o CZ9qVPOuCeVBpkOwnaeeymrggQ3ABzg24H7wLjbxmLcPg5y5ZRkrpttqMctap1/RXPaS j8C7Xvkh6FOEZ+t+PdDSVxuTJqV0TS0mhiwTRo95giLzvLQ6tWXl73SbGSypWM0qGnWE cmKx2NKsgqHZQlUblx3jLP5ETYcRdbA4LCYEDKvEunE6J0q6mPiMiZkSsBkc1Y+7JN+a S9Aiw+3pD8U7uKmAWehV0rUa/+u48yZSS/5eG5vBvyuXwbn/23ZGpgw9mOmHKTbCkgMI MF3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7HHwwSzBqol3TFyMNrkKuHuhU4CdUk8uPzr31GrbZboQ6b0cQI zUlkSZcMppcEag==
X-Received: by 10.28.35.213 with SMTP id j204mr2140789wmj.41.1492680915602; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:4cc4:bdef:de0c:32e0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 75sm2075305wmp.2.2017.04.20.02.35.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:35:13 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Cc: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: <20170420093513.zmpv7lunfkgoqtsa@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <19878_1492639968_58F7E0E0_19878_13298_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CBE742@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <22424_1492672809_58F86129_22424_6810_15_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CBF5DB@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20170420091610.e67lqxdkdmixvaci@hanna.meerval.net> <27497_1492680634_58F87FBA_27497_546_3_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CBFDCE@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <27497_1492680634_58F87FBA_27497_546_3_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CBFDCE@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/O96Diuj16q7GS3O3VhmbQRkXW-A>
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 09:35:18 -0000

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:30:34AM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> > From: Job Snijders [mailto:job@ntt.net]  > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 11:16 AM
> > 
>  > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:20:08AM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
>  > > 5) Isn't this problem statement/proposed solution a sub-part of the
>  > > route leak issue?  IOW, wouldn't it be better addressed by/in
>  > > draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy or draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation ?
>  > 
>  > Why do you think so?
>  
> Route leak is mentioned in the introduction (read justification) of
> this document.

A mention of the phrase "route leak" does not constitute as to why
draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy or
draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation are better at addressing
the problem of insecure defaults. Perhaps the drafts complement each
other?

Kind regards,

Job