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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 125B112EA7A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 nzv9LQlQEE2I for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 698D112E05D for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6240; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492635532; x=1493845132; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=hHVPBlcdIqOLT/StWHSUAPUA9n3BdoxbTF/cpjSlmfE=; b=DdoxLA5dnukNGXeHFSqb7kOP5+9ju+3n8ium3NhZfOuWlnpxZ1/2FF7W gOvUeNPrBpvJ786t21RZ0m+DpHmY77pcb7QcU9MW5xLdbMcuEwDtFDYT3 r5S+DOwJJVc7DwGBZOIwY9KnctfoaWbXEorjk0pMCxw8fGEQblamvO33G 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AeAQBvzvdY/4YNJK1WBhkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNUYYELB4NgihWRY4gejUSCDyELhXgCGoNrPxgBAgEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUVAQEBAQMBASEROgsQAgEIEQMBAgECAh8HAgICHwYLFAEICAIEAQ0FigEDF?= =?us-ascii?q?Q6qR4ImhzgNg18BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELhyQBgxmCUYF4Dia?= =?us-ascii?q?CYIJAHwWcdDsBhxCHI4RIggCFMYNhhjqIbIIhiQMBHziBBWMVRIUbgUkBdYdeg?= =?us-ascii?q?Q0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,222,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="414800449"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Apr 2017 20:58:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3JKwp5d008263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:58:51 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:58:50 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:58:50 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
CC: Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSuSz+QxMnaaMdpE6dWAZuvCqOqKHMs4OAgAB5mwA=
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:58:50 +0000
Message-ID: <D51D46A7.A9732%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <9047A5A0-ED12-43C2-B2C5-D2A71CBB4373@arrcus.com>
In-Reply-To: <9047A5A0-ED12-43C2-B2C5-D2A71CBB4373@arrcus.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0271DC8DF63FDF46BBDD2EA14D559F39@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/kxxgIp6RDRlYUyDzDq59Ql6XlO0>
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 20:59:05 -0000

I would agree with Keyur, For better or worse, our Cisco NX-OS BGP
implementation does not require configuration of a peer policy.

In fact, this requirement is contrary to some of the auto-discovery
mechanisms we are exploring where only knowledge of the mutual address
families is required.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 4/19/17, 4:43 PM, "Idr on behalf of Keyur Patel" <idr-bounces@ietf.org
on behalf of 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