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

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 26 April 2017 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5841E129BC7 for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ti9R80cAk_vi for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A8DC129BBE for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r16so3026460ioi.2 for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=zhTWtY8lMz6RAxcgI4Gy7p+x4RNPQkOb78B74U/VrNo=; b=mbdOv+Uea/GmO33g88oXL7uFyTctamIpA6wtHQ1AUTB225aL+x+gmg2yGBH5WDHKKi +72EBvaGZDgJip8U24U3963AmhNDNEMIEeCmEvi1rmtVzzhomP+FhZ1pgRMmjbM65602 jUKW8vH/W77XZflMJJbEOD9TROaoT3vAjMr1GoV9u9UyhJgQr1X8iv8C7d/S1h8I7QoJ l9BDN3Yf3eTSoSIfBvsZ3xg3ykvDyaDDAX0DghHIYoMLRTzhoAb10ez2B4eXZftk7HjY a7HUzvtwVTgXBEQF5/1OET+/q21+YHWVQaPp6DF48BZ/QVJ04DWg4WtOU9geszu3oDB6 huvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zhTWtY8lMz6RAxcgI4Gy7p+x4RNPQkOb78B74U/VrNo=; b=pwS7Ez6g4Zh11Lu3u0G7KDdDKMs8GEvXR2n6xleRMqCMs7mmLblA3vy4KOglCzQ0fP 69BE7XF+7RPkHdbA/72ymPxVUY7ON1YfPIs9Jsk/D3tc80PMV5ScfDJLDDUw8YwprHcV wO7OzV0HTN8L+cKS3hWD++cMM/5clno4ZKAIAnksnRaAuhu47uECUAUYzfCKFYCcnXLh LJXK4r784UM73KPukC/ZLwlU7AY9rx/h6jpCn3Ptg/OLm+fiWaK8p8isD4E11urxz7CP h7RKbn5shm6OL+N9wJw2LWr+pLVVsZQlV8QRo0KecxPZtlatsmFmua3Xzpy+TWw+Tcik H1Kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/42JPtySoNEX9J+EjQ4bH++pirjfCppyYfyRpbuuVLYU4KEo8aH hPFLW9UDzbFtc8GXjfgIfNy/iwzItw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d126mr22926457iog.155.1493214986513; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 06:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170426125417.GU25069@Space.Net>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <023e01d2be72$031ac180$> <20170426095547.GP25069@Space.Net> <> <> <> <20170426125417.GU25069@Space.Net>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:56:25 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: VLlGIG987lBkOQWauq5Jd_niq2I
Message-ID: <>
To: Gert Doering <>
Cc: Jared Mauch <>, idr wg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c188718d86476054e1234a8"
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:56:30 -0000

> > And if you are customer and have 4 prefixes in BGP table thing are fine.
> If
> > you by accident become transit and advertise fulm table around I think we
> > can do better in BGP to protect from it then mandate policy.
> Evidence shows that, as of today, we can not.

​Have anyone actually tried ?​

The BGP origin validation was at least one attempt.

The other one could be as simple as *"ebgp policy auto"* where based in the
IRRDB and your peer's AS router can build a policy automagically using say

Otherwise while Jared, you and perhaps most folks on this list already have
automated ways to build nice and accurate policies I suspect they are those
which do not. And those would either put "allow all" or will now start
looking for hints "what do I put in".

And if the end result is what you are doing twice a day why router's can't
do it themselves assuming IRRDB or any other src of truth is accurate ?