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 <> Thu, 20 April 2017 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938B1129ADC for <>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QC7HbLXCKbc2 for <>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C64101314A3 for <>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Apr 2017 16:50:55 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3KGoske013295; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:50:55 GMT
To: Job Snijders <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Cc:, Hares Susan <>, Enke Chen <>
From: Enke Chen <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:51:10 -0000


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