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 16:58 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 B483E1279EB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:58:02 -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 12Kq-TXHTANZ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) (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 ADCCF127078 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id w64so108963799wma.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:58:01 -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=ANG6lccjIAmlY3MA2ubhK5qTsbD0QzOYSI44P/brc6s=; b=mGuF2NBSKWJaD8oSLY+r2gVlCnWU+19EUsyotR5HyoGA6lOKnxXPh6wAOKcUV4eG/d SzvqJnKqSgaE1ODg+9iNYIuQcMyS9XrtvOUUtEZYiWz5cFBmO7AA7WupQgmoHM07Xd7v Pydac4fXVnoBXTiAmB/oqMlTkX1UDGpNiSSKS7V/ZHngpeysDM1TYIcYJr2MltYpcQlP FzlGYkJQojQvhR5b68cmOkQ6Sn4xRzyvKETTTXigkH46jlKIvyOhkBbeR1VBatUpJkW4 oKQU7Mq+2WzXsli7MQgH3esQfL69/HISFykzvapKxCXoBW3H4faDTNjaq+TLSNSuHb4U dLiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6Dlw9NavC5iHmLFk7oKm7k3HzcMeNBDcPdQ59SbGLVXd6PBHRM 85n+3/udJtHN9w==
X-Received: by 10.28.71.132 with SMTP id m4mr2018689wmi.130.1492707480022; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:4cc4:bdef:de0c:32e0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e129sm24363595wma.13.2017.04.20.09.57.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:57:57 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: <20170420165757.safd32x2xu5awwxp@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <68B29403-9AD9-4F06-9FE4-3F077E793D9F@puck.nether.net> <275cf744-1f64-bcbc-dabe-a47479921230@cisco.com> <20170420154142.lacvtplusepy3qcf@hanna.meerval.net> <b57162ec-f806-6e86-7713-58608f72c468@cisco.com> <20170420164314.av26kcxvxglg4oet@hanna.meerval.net> <3b681e50-bf6d-df75-eb61-86be79a2fbb8@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3b681e50-bf6d-df75-eb61-86be79a2fbb8@cisco.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VEx2vqUE6e2pUNnM6x1Ub08jU1Y>
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 16:58:03 -0000

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