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> Sat, 29 April 2017 09:21 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 9DACD127B60 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 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] 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 P3h8FWkSmgjg for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x235.google.com (mail-io0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]) (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 E920C129353 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x235.google.com with SMTP id a103so81656210ioj.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:20:27 -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=hMBGCcpsKCluxFrGrQMtCJZQgY79YKIOFWG1+RS7U0I=; b=JoO73u8yY7HG1GHw23XXH9YV4DYr4X5RP0D9mT8XLa5EeoP1usjof3Z82htwv3utyT 8N84Sp+yyeywwWSvDsNrGNKWppPcVAU+RgflswZH9QvG6SxMlizdsYDlQkRSi+P2DF/8 KIC9hy3Lw3+ec/FSEtHeQkCAwBwsQcOx8CR8xut/1hamnhBBZiNTlFj/ol8VyMFXPuSe aL1QGdBZwAe5qxanLzWBM5eC6D0ZW6R1KRfGCrDUESKPD5cNpy45w4IGe3T2VPbKID/f XfjekJgV5C/DQtnfvbIfx5UOG+vhdRzCXYJxLB9kQHpfgXVyNPKsRg5qDuyY0OPm8pTG gHmA==
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=hMBGCcpsKCluxFrGrQMtCJZQgY79YKIOFWG1+RS7U0I=; b=jObELI/rOHoyaO7jkTqTX0F9EcTL2MPPxPCDeLKsNcsoez7fLKyIm90KcPNjTnUni/ w6GRWtRls/ZydHjCNavis+42xNvJASq4h0ouYdJsdLhEShlNGb2H0JsKJIClkdFytDdN 1uf8E5anV5wGGWiI2viP9JytsnDWAv1uE7IwjA1fXXbSoRHuSI6j92D0b0IXDHXa4qye wB1fcGucG/3j2/SdWFIElkoAh8MA9LNQwKcrlFrmaDbM6jeBW748utXL6eaoFed93QOG SQl7kfbnvXbL+geRUh8sRFyRIcfEkxyOomYjPDE4dzerRlmAkbfHqN8P46OEWURMfxnf O0Gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4LWytEl8cXE/S3GQaQZ3TUf8d26W+WQ26fivmI6YStq9aXVj4O kPneep34QTvJdgwKjJiq7bFnDnnlu+q4
X-Received: by 10.107.205.132 with SMTP id d126mr14275321iog.155.1493457627343; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.62.24 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m24lx76djx.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <9047A5A0-ED12-43C2-B2C5-D2A71CBB4373@arrcus.com> <D51D46A7.A9732%acee@cisco.com> <0A49219D-E721-4DA8-B9BF-A55C2FA36FBE@puck.nether.net> <D95C67A4-AEBF-400B-A360-61C342FD6E4A@arrcus.com> <CA+b+ER=hq0=JNRfF8VA76_aqeRMBCeyQm5aTbapysXGTgaGS_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaakVACiZKjk6XUi9mwkrCRsPqONUQmrTBCN7V43y+RtrQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2y3uk7h8p.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaZXqA8-LnAdNOfhCQA+pq1fh1site_shSH+-gH0hCNeqQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2o9vg6snc.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAH1iCirW2qnmXyGQb5Db0UYjKhODhbeRxdZEGCWfiQRjWnkn5w@mail.gmail.com> <m27f246ovd.wl-randy@psg.com> <CA+b+ER=Dj=F6rCmZVtOuYmGQyO5fBZx0=18MdbuOhj3fB=XVKA@mail.gmail.com> <m24lx76djx.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:20:25 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JuZ5D-1IZl-Qa0XLSrLnotaciKg
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERm6LuJv+psrE9+DJSgfMSnSHO1LXsFt274J+Btz3WH_1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1887185d72be054e4ab3ff
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d5F0Fr8cAwtJr0p1Rmzo-wuWjWU>
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: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:21:52 -0000

> but vendors should do their best
> to ameliorate the risks with loud
> warnings.

Indeed ...

There is also proposed option to significantly reduce the risk by changing
this default only to protect from becomig an accidental transit I suggested
in this thread already.

It is simple to implement by vendors, does not require any protocol change
and does not affect in any way stub guys which today advertise their PI
prefix out and get default in.

Which btw they must already explicitely enumerate either in "network"
statement or "route/prefix-map" during redistribution. Why to enforce same
thing to be configured multiple times in your config ? That is always error
prone.

Thx
R.