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 09:09 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 7577D12EBA5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:09:49 -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 HBr6n05FvZxY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) (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 8EA6912EBB0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id r190so42279671wme.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:09:45 -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=PjR8MD6bIuxSFr7d6uHcPj6WJYDeZSCE5rwwnCuHb3s=; b=QWi1T2RxSdinaaw26XR+NaIFGdW2YgR7jkeFdHKNffGFPOyLGFiNqxsRFzxeZ6SPi4 /IlUwSnMNrIx6Nvo1Rtd//NW8vjQIgCYzVc01dkFfRTTqby12JtEMoT6GWFuYlInBDKX w3MabpgNIZ2L5t8+B9A9AEbSol+colroCX91LM46rvbiRdHrduqLu+0VjDl6mZeRZx6n llTqGi2GTP2ti//OSYq1u9+zvU9ERzsSF+ayAqzkfbHwEbaxJ9NSoqrV4CLGViWiSqrm RSMxdYLJrsRfQRKvlEjQdo8X0PclBwq1VddJmwMT32GpzeVsW4MAXoZ/xVoS5OL86ZTR Vyvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6q5HS/ChBkEZjFP+EmGpj2p/SClf9jASc4nYkr9TkS05Xwz1R6 +FNv6rU+RowRZQFpzjgusQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.218.67 with SMTP id r64mr2093632wmg.36.1492679383689; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:4cc4:bdef:de0c:32e0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m139sm7176866wmb.27.2017.04.20.02.09.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:09:41 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: <20170420090941.c5yi72mzleto64ph@hanna.meerval.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> <2b8a94bb-4f40-6c1d-05ff-9cf11ad93646@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2b8a94bb-4f40-6c1d-05ff-9cf11ad93646@cisco.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U28h7KItoUQeYB5SFWG0H7bGd8Y>
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 09:09:49 -0000

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:34:10PM -0700, Enke Chen wrote:
> 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.

And very soon after the cutoff a customer may elect to roll back the
change and read the release notes!

The 'complete cutoff' only occurs after a specific sequence of events
which together would represent a cascading failure in due diligence. 

Given that we've suffered through decennia of insecure behaviour on some
platforms, I'd be careful to weigh the cost of such a self-inflicted
'complete cutoff' against the cost on internet operations in general to
persist in the folly behaviour that some platforms present.

Kind regards,

Job