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 09:37 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 B71CB12EBDE for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.699 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_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 x5NIyFojARwr for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-f174.google.com (mail-wr0-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) (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 6EA8912EAC2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z109so31685813wrb.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:37:09 -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:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=q7OH0s/kaJKc24w344kNO307Op60ZY4mRsknyJKOs9Q=; b=eg8R4pnRLOQEFRBugjCtEv4GUT1Uu4+8bQlqsknyman3nAcflVcW+r2omn9Rbrco5c K+YgjV7g40NZfSt+/oCdTKHYwnny5R8RTlAeA2od0jbxucJ/ZjcEg47MQg0ctD7GHavO CcmMsiSG7fEImEDMuzJTLc4PRYAo80dr2rfbRxqqafng2J6svuBsVD5G5dfHy++mzpMx Jb6AWq+Z9zPQbYHvCVXnDaSxAYBxFG1b62zG6UUaGmeyyaEqwb9w6gWElGppgwrgtAPd HM1jBIdJ2556X2LSa0urMYbk3OnnUBsgRs4j7fzHuR+ygbYHINFDH6ejNBbCM979UmSd y9vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/63q7VpHlQpbYfzMcAOT3T36/o4o0NA5F7LO2bypYKqP51cOyKf usTOdcVjtbAb8g==
X-Received: by 10.223.183.21 with SMTP id l21mr6677821wre.191.1492681027863; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:4cc4:bdef:de0c:32e0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n45sm6815330wrn.30.2017.04.20.02.37.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:37:06 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: <20170420093706.ongrlwi47kew6vt2@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnRz8BEO3mb1fnsDPoiL6Wxjdfw9vQPbyODNEa+xCJdnw@mail.gmail.com> <D51D67E4.A9782%acee@cisco.com> <AF07526F-F08B-4084-937B-A9A2D2DD2813@juniper.net> <CA+b+ERnRbAG_WSppAVkWETL0zjeppmm9fwqRu8DV24Hcdihqiw@mail.gmail.com> <20170420090535.cfxn5tbhns5bszvf@hanna.meerval.net> <4993_1492680765_58F8803D_4993_4017_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CBFE4F@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4993_1492680765_58F8803D_4993_4017_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CBFE4F@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eLVhQ-Zdq_KgcT9O--NVlgFpSj0>
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 09:37:11 -0000

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:32:44AM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> > From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders  > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 11:06 AM
> > 
>  > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 01:30:13AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>  > > ​John,
>  > >
>  > > ​> 
>  > > How would this be different, assuming you elect not to change your
>  > > implementation to comply?
>  > >
>  > > ​Well if we are to standardize by rough consensus a RFC which we already
>  > > know is not going to be ​honored for the reasons clearly stated what are we
>  > > gaining ?
>  > >
>  > > BGP implementations which support inbound policy to accept any routes will
>  > > continue doing so .. and those which do not also will continue not to do
>  > > so.
>  > >
>  > > So what is the point ?
>  > 
>  > Although I do not share your pessimistic view on what can and can't be
>  > done, at the very least it will provide guidance for new BGP
>  > implementations.
> 
> This would work for me.
> Can the document be updated to reflect this?

Existing deployments are just that: existing deployments. It seems
superfluous to mention that compliance with the Internet-Draft might be
enforced only after a software upgrade. The same goes for many other
RFCs.

Kind regards,

Job