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

Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org> Fri, 21 April 2017 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jayb@oz.mt.att.com>
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 BBB06129AA7 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8] autolearn=ham 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 eP2WU6pR3Gkm for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A0A1128B88 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v3LGlFdf025366 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:49:14 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 29ykyxvmhu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:49:13 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3LGnCCc025776 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:49:12 -0400
Received: from alpi133.aldc.att.com (alpi133.aldc.att.com [130.8.217.3]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3LGn74D025712 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:49:07 -0400
Received: from alpi153.aldc.att.com (alpi153.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by alpi133.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:48:49 GMT
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3LGmmq2018207 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:48:49 -0400
Received: from oz.mt.att.com (oz.mt.att.com [135.16.165.23]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3LGmenV017296 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:48:42 -0400
Received: by oz.mt.att.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 35E00A40D37; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:48:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: emacs 24.3.1 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I); VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <22778.14310.306749.180959@oz.mt.att.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:48:38 -0400
From: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <76d50f1f-e009-ab24-9c66-abdd41791dc1@juniper.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <76d50f1f-e009-ab24-9c66-abdd41791dc1@juniper.net>
Reply-To: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
X-GPG-Fingerprint: DDDB 542E D988 94D0 82D3 D198 7DED 6648 2308 D3C0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-04-21_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=4 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1034 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1704210299
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VigSkCoAd0_N2Egy_Q99ERS134k>
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:49:18 -0000

Eric C Rosen writes:
 > [...]  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.
 > 

I am not one of the authors (although for what it's worth I have been
agreeing with their comments in this thread), but I don't think
they're saying those side-effects are of no consequence.

While such side-effects may be unfortunate, they will be felt only by
those who do not read release notes, do not test, do not slow-start
their code upgrades, etc.  That such folks may exist should not
prevent standardizing the sane and important defaults this draft
proposes.


To those who propose keeping the ebgp session down if no policies are
configured, that's worse.  It would require an implementation to tear
down an established ebgp session when a necessary policy is removed,
violating POLA.  The actions proposed in this draft constitute failing
hard (hard enough). 

Thanks.

						Jay B.