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

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