Re: [Idr] [GROW] Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Wed, 19 April 2017 18:46 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 3D93D129BF3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 CHI6pkG8_kbp for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (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 D42EF129C12 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id w64so87396344wma.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xf9vmvsTI22Of+nusE2RxzqJdmD8ishJB0tXW+hhIiI=; b=NmGgEh734+2A0Xg6i6l3pJF1IU47rgzx4xMmlr5vGNACVHAmQq3/79iQDu5bQUet29 OTs67JLsQl49XjRwrZvCobSoyhnqtsZLQQBw9S0YNXoyiX0Q0TZtR8LgSJF7RzZn3KOk jOj7wbXr1V3HMK8Fv/mNFOLrKgoERMv1kd9KMv++peb6FjfeIim1UZ9MZmTAoUaqrSCV BHsl+0IZrXr/lYvI777uHIFEg18zzXhwLthAG/Np9KujB2BvFTuxECRDKUe436KKeK5F qUb/yd5KqKIXrdZRI5cGUqZEz5Wg6U3VZfY2GmFQIwzyfifV6GrBiBc89i66Hk8HihTx sclQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xf9vmvsTI22Of+nusE2RxzqJdmD8ishJB0tXW+hhIiI=; b=IF0RtjUWxDBBK6N9uEuYVLDSLOi1Ltcq3qxPKwg758K0il7dWi5npsP46t+8V54XHF ZkFfx8w2VnOfokP5bCUSOmd7cQUTnszBByrvjPxtoKBc4w4EjiJnBmSEOsThoFoJPzLi luZer4aqHALkr/FwhHp83hQZ2JmSxBtnZsN/PaXtOG36Vq0DI9vPo/2jlhVweQtClHnD GXADZzOTbZwaCs7KxvC99ClCR68iAYXOLYT6BJ0dJEx9/wAy4KlNk4nqeJB0cdFcWqoj qE4BXDfCZB5IVD2OhRc8axAqUU+McybzmkZkwCZt3VQQr00AOgha9HgRSjEHeyr6qhyp fTww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7zDFHJT5HXfkjJgRBqQpA5CH7w/uTQNpGZ1qtDvn5oZlvy5hLc 71haM4wuMO6XsGpcUUy8WF8M+RsARQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.182.134 with SMTP id g128mr4230482wmf.22.1492627590343; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <27BC3D10-48EA-4751-A70A-0753B0437F8F@cisco.com> <8FA9FC06-CA1C-4738-B15A-387E2A2CE275@juniper.net> <FD44B598-060A-406D-B2EC-1AFC177CA9F8@cisco.com> <A898C59C-E82D-4423-8BFA-08FDA24132CC@puck.nether.net> <9BF858F5-5FE3-4A48-96D5-E9852518FDBC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9BF858F5-5FE3-4A48-96D5-E9852518FDBC@cisco.com>
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:46:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CACWOCC-JaHvSyztFo1jtw3bxSFfoMShhTx4KFegbaHbkL4LvuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b0e004e1666054d8971ea
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/P4B5PpRLcC6HxGWHfeGZ-Jlo_A4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05
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 18:46:54 -0000

We got it.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 at 20:45, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>
wrote:

> On 4/19/17, 10:03 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
> Jared:
>
> > Are you saying that IOS-XR is non-compliant with 9.1.1 because it does
> not have “bgp
> > unsafe-ebgp-policy” as the default?
>
> No.  I wasn’t talking about any specific implementation.
>
> One of the reasons I like your document is the fact that rfc4271 is not
> specific about what should be done if there is no policy – it just says
> that policy may be applied.  From that point of view, the XR implementation
> is neither compliant nor non-compliant.
>
>
> > At what point does the Cisco implementation make that decision?
> >
> > We seem to be triangulating on where in the exact decision process
> people are
> > considering a route feasible or ineligible, can you speak to your
> implementation?  That
> > may provide guidance in documenting the IOS-XR practice.
>
> The XR implementation makes the decision while processing the Update
> messages.  Specifically, it drops all the routes from a peer without an
> incoming policy configured.  IOW, it acts as if a deny-all filter existed.
>
> In the conceptual model in rfc4271, the routes are not even put in the
> Adj-RIB-In.
>
>
>
> Compared to the current text (in -05), there would be no routes to mark as
> ineligible in 9.1.1.   The text I proposed also assumed that the routes
> would at least be received/stored.
>
> If you want the same behavior as XR then you would have to make the change
> in Section 9. (UPDATE Message Handling).
>
> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>