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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 19 April 2017 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.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 8817312E852 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 go9m15V1kTU3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (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 A6EA512E05D for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k87so37318203ioi.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=AyXkPzsg+PdUunH1sKa/a3EBgqce0/AbC5+jG3x0cgY=; b=V7A7uQ0k0Ax6vCl1xLc7cFDtg63j6nJVv5y0l+aB/VdZlAixFd1I6BIwARX7HhHA11 dMsek6lIPNxEYtvXB7EkfWQp237ZZjWazo4zAeld32mRlN57nV1MNOCXw5J/THi9TykT JcsU4GlRmgJdgHU0pyaVNQQsfg15QcmK/rysHjifv3U19ISsump9QY1/ZLAT98b1hJW9 xPxSMMnpvDjPE/m7RtxswcL/z+dRGjO9E9JmkvsCgX5YOmHXhXLNWvpCkrapW1Cqg3mK HqTb8xVZMOPHoJQkbmVptuspl1uQ0R0De3yJA9Al44xH6Zw2cQUwUZr/YDaPd0vLZq0g ScIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AyXkPzsg+PdUunH1sKa/a3EBgqce0/AbC5+jG3x0cgY=; b=g0NLTgffvq2TBKgPP2d3cErPtYy2NSNa8ZEmxqcEzhzc+dkMcXlWth1BROydtLB7fR HKFX3tEr1mPrkOJhf73QFWEemgVetvi+LXrziC9+gejyQ57b4ID1s89tqA5+a+w4t6hC szH8Uw7AcpffXlZdSSF/3uv9pLqD7PpGnN+XQqL7/47IDx7y5JXrPYNzL1wx/RTJ3BR4 nlhVQspRJRNyQKXU4xdupOhLZPAg26EtM3yAXB9hTNsKVpr1ipv+JYPX/kcmPpNH1Pzg tE3TiQKcKV9bGbr48/wSJcAee66Vcq+jFjxEfniOQ7wJeYd7paDWAXOsY6m92A3bAv9x OCfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6jO+xt8wE/wSyORJID4JBV6sRoxcTy4nC7khWD7LHCVjGmjS8l N4PR8PtIlo+VmaFh7LRXf17xaMv6fA==
X-Received: by 10.36.219.195 with SMTP id c186mr22624605itg.25.1492635521899; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.170.4 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9047A5A0-ED12-43C2-B2C5-D2A71CBB4373@arrcus.com>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <9047A5A0-ED12-43C2-B2C5-D2A71CBB4373@arrcus.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:58:41 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: U3R3rhR6FralJMfaf0YVL--Sy8U
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERkSEHtnL9=jdu8qPw48DFrs4LCK-h-zkmkC7q2n8e6kog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
Cc: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f5cce0ff744054d8b4a39
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c4zBk8BpqzyyBqiKoR-fiogzxII>
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 20:58:45 -0000

As discussed offline with authors I would also suggest to reconsider if
such Standards Track RFC should really be applicable to all AFIs and SAFIs
as it is today. I would suggest to keep it only applicable to 1/1 and 2/1.

For other AFI/SAFIs it will result in empty policy as it is hard to predict
what filters flow-spec or RT constrained (as just two examples) may send
you ahead of time.

For other SAFIs say safi 128 for Inter-AS EBGP the required filtering may
already be present in forms of rt-table-map filtering which would not
necessarily be part of per neighbor eBGP inbound import policy but may
exist depending on the option either globally or per VRF.

Last the draft does not specify if BGP Origin Validation is to be
considered as such inbound policy or not.

Kind regards,
Robert.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>; wrote:

> Thank you John for bringing it on IDR.
>
> As an update to RFC4271, I am not sure if I agree with the EBGP policy
> configuration. There are lot of DC networks (for example) that use EBGP
> within their CLOS. This extension may not be applicable in such networks.
>
> I would request authors to consider refining text to include appropriate
> EBGP use cases and not make it generic for EBGP sessions (defined in 4271).
>
> Regards,
> Keyur
>
>
> On 4/19/17, 9:49 AM, "Idr on behalf of John G. Scudder" <
> idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jgs@juniper.net>; 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>;
>     > 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>;
>     > Cc: grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@
> ietf.org, christopher.morrow@gmail.com
>     > Reply-To: 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 mailing lists by 2017-05-02. Exceptionally, comments
> may be
>     > sent to 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
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>