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 <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:50:53AM -0700, Enke Chen wrote:
> My personal opinion:
> 
> Vendors are *not* in the business of intentionally creating network outages :-)
> Those that do may not stay in the business for long :-)

You could also argue, that by not implementing the bgp-reject guidance,
a vendor intentionally creates outages which result from inadvertent
propagation of full routing tables.

If a vendor implements bgp-reject, the customers enjoy mitigation of the
risk of hitting the timer penalty on a 'maximum prefix reached'
shutdown, or perhaps someone configured their router to not
automatically re-enable the session after maximum-prefix is hit, in this
case the outage prolongs.

If you are committed to preventing outages, implementing bgp-reject
seems the right thing to do.

Kind regards,

Job