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 <> Fri, 21 April 2017 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1760012954B for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9gDX3MbSgSqL for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C9A126E3A for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r190so21260328wme.1 for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=M322u1OJoifgJwiMl/eM1IsFjHIhXAS9lXPkCV9U27Q=; b=uJjPYzVb9SM7kWf66+WSMDHmYt2ki9C06vJT6Nk5dmH94PZWn6/h3hQs6e+e+uOqzW L80fIOsShw13QJ8FX9TXBYoGsL0zaQ37YK9r9n4G6RwMIc6p59d9cbMtJrQAvMF1vxfZ vqqLmvgwWq4v0Ann1v0L9NhllEmcGbRfjIo6F4cJi4vB2Jy43nRHccGph5eF4I/f3YHk l0yoA5Od89l3pQ00GYLGrPvgKvzNFyWGRshFePuvn9GT3cQrSgTibsXcp016/K/WsjYr k18vR6pJDh8qw/hMA/5qtA8miXKqP97NEN4BAbyvNz+13YWMyTE9UA3huZvK2bAjUXcY U+Tg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=M322u1OJoifgJwiMl/eM1IsFjHIhXAS9lXPkCV9U27Q=; b=eS3ESx1kP0qm54ALfosGU9DIZw669Ag5/pHVVlLHTIc0ikaEAhKWLE50/bFO37GAg9 8EhCxi1AWA9gvJy27NQv/2FWECRHVymTVJL7oR2lBJmFA3xUO8tiSx0FNKpKAYE4u4oP dKlmEJ8oMDJhHjXd/gTWulxPVnyyjBkbkKT+kcJ52yikT0FOlBpgkDesp4Rb1Gi+hUE3 dN43EU+/DM/UtG1//gc3ddCAZiZEE0IaG53Ub7xsfJLgrTt3MgG+Hk1uShNySgBWhZ5j HiwqEe8yxGOtqaq4o7L6/Kftk6xilVEJNsEuL+ZP0hJUTnpkvBn0CjmV5UCoFy12xG85 KV2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7SE8s/1PsXHUjk8pcjTtscONPZRgV6+iRKMY0/zzb0c2jPH6G0 b9Mv7BMS5SLLhg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s20mr68434edd.100.1492791562546; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:154d:67d1:53a6:3be]) by with ESMTPSA id c6sm517480eda.15.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:19:20 +0200
From: Job Snijders <>
To: Eric C Rosen <>
Cc: "John G. Scudder" <>,, Hares Susan <>
Message-ID: <20170421161920.jdgrzm6bkrm27xim@Vurt.local>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:19:26 -0000

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:54:29AM -0400, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> Well, it didn't take long for this thread to reach the point of
> diminishing returns.

As is often the case when people engage in polemic debate.

> FWIW, my take on it is the following.
> The document should not be considered to be an update to 4271, as it
> does not change anything 4271 says, and does not update or extend the
> protocol in any way.  Standards track seems entirely inappropriate, as
> there is no protocol specification in it.

The Area Director and the IDR Chairs believe that the document actually
should update 4271, and the next version of this document will be an
attempt to codify that. Some of the authors expressed concerns, but we
are never the less willing to put in the work.

Should you be interested in how an update to 4271 could be formulated,
please take a look at:

> The document is not really a Best Current Practices document, as it
> advocates a change from current practice.

Eric, you fail to acknowledge that already today, in widely deployed
software, a myriad of behaviours exist in this regard. There is no
"current practice".

> The document is okay as an Informational document representing the
> consensus of the GROW WG.  It would be nice if the document indicated
> that it only considers the use of BGP when providing Internet service,
> and does not consider other uses of BGP.  It would also be nice if the
> document indicated that there may be unintended side-effects of
> changing the defaults, but the authors consider those to be of no
> consequence.

Your concern is noted.

Kind regards,