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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 280931293E3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 zBRcbNtOY0uC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3999B128792 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=22557; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492643904; x=1493853504; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=GdIJC5JmWErhBGmdzfi3tgjEhBP9CqXK9c4DRAwS2pQ=; b=aaSoTmU0318v6RdpTELvo6WEpm6Rq7+bhLcEuBEQFtaqRPVOh5ikOBR5 bEdjkXAgL/O1TPJimjMhccroOaxDm95PGG6fb2BzO0BTanDhP96jSi6LS +sP9ZuJcf4frirUCCxGUkDiqNnhF5klRGVJ/nLnLTe32rAti0MwEbRCai I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AhAQBz7/dY/4UNJK1WBhkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJuZmGBCweDYIoVkWJwhy6ID4U1gg8hAQqFeAIag2s/GAECAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAwEBIUsLEAIBCBEDAQIBIwQDAgICHwYLFAkIAgQBDQWKA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMVDqpagiaHMg2DXwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFiDCCZTSCUYF4LoJ?= =?us-ascii?q?mgkAfBZx0OwGHEIcjhEiCAIUxg2GGOohsgiGJAwEfOIEFYxVEhC05HBmBSnUBA?= =?us-ascii?q?YdcgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,222,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="224645062"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Apr 2017 23:18:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3JNILGI017806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:18:21 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:18:21 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:18:20 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Enke Chen (enkechen)" <enkechen@cisco.com>
CC: Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSuV/NQxMnaaMdpE6dWAZuvCqOqKHNlW4A//++RoA=
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:18:20 +0000
Message-ID: <D51D67E4.A9782%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnRz8BEO3mb1fnsDPoiL6Wxjdfw9vQPbyODNEa+xCJdnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnRz8BEO3mb1fnsDPoiL6Wxjdfw9vQPbyODNEa+xCJdnw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D51D67E4A9782aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_ONW-gfUKjXZjR996aNYXQpAFFI>
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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:18:27 -0000

Hi Robert, Enke,

Also, irrespective of the Intended Status, the draft is conspicuously missing a “Backwards Compatibility” section. I would expect the draft to include this discussion even if it is progressed as BCP.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 7:13 PM
To: "Enke Chen (enkechen)" <enkechen@cisco.com<mailto:enkechen@cisco.com>>
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
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

Hi Enke,

100% agreed. I said the same to authors offline earlier today as well.

Every time you define a new AFI/SAFI one can make such AFI/SAFI mandatory to have an inbound policy or not.

If authors would go that far and define new AFI/SAFI for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast so be it. The defaults there may be changed by such spec :) And once accepted such new AFI/SAFI may share the routes with 1/1 & 2/1 for IBGP propagation too.

Making it a Standards Track doc for all SAFIs MP-BGP is used today seems like a pretty bad idea.

And as far as deployment practice we already have BCP document on this for a while ... See section 6.3.1 of BCP194

REF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp194#section-6.3.1

Cheers,
R.


On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com<mailto:enkechen@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi, Folks:

The document defines or changes the "default behavior" for EBGP.  However, the default
behavior for a particular code base or release was set long time ago, and in some cases
more than 20 years ago. To avoid breaking existing deployment in this case, the default
behavior in the code can not be changed (with or without this document). Then it becomes
a deployment practice for the policies to be configured.

So it seems to me that "Standard Track" may not be the right classification for this
document.  "Deployment recommendation or Practice" might be more appropriate.

Thanks.  -- Enke

On 4/19/17 9:49 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> IDR folks,
>
> As many of you have already noticed, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05 has completed GROW WGLC and is now in IETF LC.
>
> As nobody other than Alvaro noticed (thank you for noticing, Alvaro!) draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05 represents an update to RFC 4271, in that it mandates what a BGP implementation MUST do. See section 2 of the draft for the details. It's short and easy to read.
>
> If we had noticed this earlier, we would have either chosen to home the document in IDR, or explicitly made an exception to have GROW do the work. Given that we didn't, though, the plan is to continue progressing the draft as a GROW document. However:
>
> - As I understand it, the authors will add the Updates: 4271 header in addition to potentially taking in other comments from AD review.
> - If anyone has a strong objection to the unusual procedure, please say so (either on-list, or to the chairs + AD).
> - Please send any last call comments to the IETF LC (see below) although it's also OK to discuss here on the IDR list of course.
>
> Many IDR participants are also active in GROW and have had their say, but if you haven't, now's your chance.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --John
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org<mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
>> Date: April 18, 2017 at 5:16:05 PM EDT
>> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org>>
>> Cc: grow-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:grow-chairs@ietf.org>, grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org>, christopher.morrow@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
>>
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
>> (grow) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies'
>> <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org> mailing lists by 2017-05-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org> instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>  This document defines the default behavior of a BGP speaker when
>>  there is no import or export policy associated with an External BGP
>>  session.
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject/ballot/
>>
>> This IETF LC, which originally concluded on 2017-04-18, is being
>> extended to allow for additional input to be provided. Ops AD (for GROW)
>> and Routing AD (for IDR) wish to ensure that cross WG discussions have
>> had a chance to occur.
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr