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

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 0B881127201 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 iFtYwy4HIAd5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E988D129AF7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:25c2:4c02:5849:c73d] (unknown [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:25c2:4c02:5849:c73d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B24E8540A6D; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <D51D67E4.A9782%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:43:11 -0400
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Enke Chen (enkechen)" <enkechen@cisco.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C9C35ECD-F7D1-4015-A133-D69AC19619BA@puck.nether.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnRz8BEO3mb1fnsDPoiL6Wxjdfw9vQPbyODNEa+xCJdnw@mail.gmail.com> <D51D67E4.A9782%acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nSC5slh88xsgOTPxitYJvOrxk4Q>
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 13:43:39 -0000

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert, Enke,
> 
> Also, irrespective of the Intended Status, the draft is conspicuously missing a “Backwards Compatibility” section. I would expect the draft to include this discussion even if it is progressed as BCP. 

Are we to dictate to the vendors how to write a security-conscious BGP implementation?  I’m seeing one vendor that has it more-than-one way as default saying uniformity is impossible.

Once again, similar to other discussions that transpired in 2016 I’m concerned that people in IDR are disconnected from the operational practices of the internet-at-large.

- Jared