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

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <enkechen@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 938B1129ADC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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, 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 QC7HbLXCKbc2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C64101314A3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1875; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492707055; x=1493916655; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GNCx6COgTsqgb6uy+dI1eEnxXvyBELd8hD2hINOL82E=; b=hHK6pgUnnpmhXuSNfioISdVZ9Q1KJBMFMl61ydJQAJ0oOaJVvkT+w5ZS NBG4hZCfICTOxI7SyUcZEKqyQE80DA8FdwHR9cAqcIxqXekL879DSq10P OgLRv3Z3ViZatC6sU+YegTg4UeZjUKYeavwr6XvmEzBgGb2DLHGXUq3Pv M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,225,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="413403265"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Apr 2017 16:50:55 +0000
Received: from [10.24.16.81] ([10.24.16.81]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3KGoske013295; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:50:55 GMT
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <68B29403-9AD9-4F06-9FE4-3F077E793D9F@puck.nether.net> <275cf744-1f64-bcbc-dabe-a47479921230@cisco.com> <20170420154142.lacvtplusepy3qcf@hanna.meerval.net> <b57162ec-f806-6e86-7713-58608f72c468@cisco.com> <20170420164314.av26kcxvxglg4oet@hanna.meerval.net>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <3b681e50-bf6d-df75-eb61-86be79a2fbb8@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:50:53 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170420164314.av26kcxvxglg4oet@hanna.meerval.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kvc24gJD6wgJbF9gOfcQYAmxj18>
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 16:51:10 -0000

Job,

My personal opinion:

Vendors are *not* in the business of intentionally creating network outages :-)
Those that do may not stay in the business for long :-)

Regards,  -- Enke 

On 4/20/17 9:43 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:57:07AM -0700, Enke Chen wrote:
>> It depends on the customer base and also how long the software has
>> been deployed. Just think about the scenario that a large number of
>> customers would lose network connectivity unexpectedly due to a
>> default behavior change in the code. Such outages could keep happening
>> to different customers for years to come.
> 
> If these outages occur, they'll be quickly remedied since the service is
> down, which provides incentive to either roll back or deploy a fix.  We
> call this "fail hard". However, it is a failure mode that is
> preventable, and vendors have a big role in this.
> 
> This outage only occurs if and only if there a sequence of process
> errors that together are a cascading failure: e.g. absolutely no reading
> or reviewing of the release notes by anyone in the organisation, no
> taking heed of prior notifications (through for instance operational
> mailing lists or customer/vendor meetings), no testing, and no staggered
> canary deployment, all of this on top of reliance on the operating
> system's default (whatever it may be) when there is no policy configured
> for the EBGP peer. 
> 
> Why would anyone download a new software if one are not going to read
> the release notes? Why would one upgrade a software if one does not know
> what it will do? Any problems will be self-inflicted, and easy to remedy
> by rolling back or configuring a policy.
> 
> Your perceived risk, which can be managed, does not legitimize a
> continuation of inconsistent or insecure behaviour.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
>