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 <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 19 April 2017 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.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 55448127337 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NQMwElIZBuyL for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87C6912EAAD for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id k87so42615593ioi.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=mELnYg84Oc82Ia5FG3e5ukE0rk4L+TGxKbtM3XKeYW4=; b=BxU4eTv1e2ktHm6+2mWGH5GBPZmqYwx6aFdsXAOS/7rqJh/d4bXhyIuO838LCxmm01 apnxqDKSE05TZiD2psyTnJkazW0htQ9XI3AjhRpiiQpHwxx5SJ2qa8KBdYdFZ45A5x4Q 0ULeViJhzvIIJQOu4IYyNBeA6mAMJQxnFQbKwr+sPcjz9L8qDKLq8No4XLI2GqwmPwel 6f3elDH3ukBqrYOhnpb83kPm0SBmuCDVQWm7RgXciZgCfr9jRSAt2vvt7vs3LdKIEk6q sD6gkExBdVGd5lZKOIJ52BXJZ96sKGdrf2x2LKEOfJH81KET2NPIwkGGbyH2y/VR9zfQ WR+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mELnYg84Oc82Ia5FG3e5ukE0rk4L+TGxKbtM3XKeYW4=; b=snOlicktlbmL2jciu95mnQh/NK1i7Aup/6qq8B7ESM4Nkx5D4zesa+7pbmKkz8CvLr Ns43dTZMbv3w5DufHLy/PDxqbkO8utlnulmFTx/EvJ70YjJdqhCS7Wnypi6Vmp47ugzU m5SUmDzLwgUYXEJP9tUOrv82HSvNhHeAFGnarW3kkLHsuXmw0sm4n9OIF8wURwxYDL+F 3afOpriI8SB3P5tWcz56AqvP3P9Oh5p0hqnkE8ZI0WwSJALqg22ZYe7YgRglGv0Uko59 I9NY2SXLJVYgNG/jYOOtwNWeR9Jf0BokV5leMRsHN3MykhQp7PmDCsLZTQXZYa6nmAZ2 6Spg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/43dB+L4pd6pf9tVriy9x8lJv0BhcIZZDtL+2UYdV001rOA+RXd 66zZl2Q7qekwIn4DAoZjcRff3iqvng==
X-Received: by 10.36.82.144 with SMTP id d138mr682677itb.24.1492644329984; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.170.4 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D51D67E4.A9782%acee@cisco.com>
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>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 01:25:29 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JC7XbMdNDDcJPQ2_DTh9NAVLT8s
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERm=f6N6s0R6YpuGVqWveTj5v_Kr4PUa03WjuJM5ChOUww@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "Enke Chen (enkechen)" <enkechen@cisco.com>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144735410a11a054d8d57ea
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rgROg0qPZHjTdJJAfrW0WC8LhhQ>
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 23:25:35 -0000

Well if this is a deployment BCP it does not need one ... you can apply any
policy on EBGP any time you like even today and nothing will break. At most
you upset or loose your customers.

But mandating to change behavior of an implementation default across all
SAFIs is a completely different animal.



On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:18 AM, 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
> robert@raszuk.net>;
> Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 7:13 PM
> To: "Enke Chen (enkechen)" <enkechen@cisco.com>;
> Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>;, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>;
> 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
>
> Hi Enke,
>
> 100% agreed. I said the same to authors offline earlier today as well.
>
> Every time you define a new AFI/SAFI one can make such AFI/SAFI mandatory
> to have an inbound policy or not.
>
> If authors would go that far and define new AFI/SAFI for IPv4 and IPv6
> unicast so be it. The defaults there may be changed by such spec :) And
> once accepted such new AFI/SAFI may share the routes with 1/1 & 2/1 for
> IBGP propagation too.
>
> Making it a Standards Track doc for all SAFIs MP-BGP is used today seems
> like a pretty bad idea.
>
> And as far as deployment practice we already have BCP document on this for
> a while ... See section 6.3.1 of BCP194
>
> REF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp194#section-6.3.1
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>; wrote:
>
>> Hi, Folks:
>>
>> The document defines or changes the "default behavior" for EBGP.
>> However, the default
>> behavior for a particular code base or release was set long time ago, and
>> in some cases
>> more than 20 years ago. To avoid breaking existing deployment in this
>> case, the default
>> behavior in the code can not be changed (with or without this document).
>> Then it becomes
>> a deployment practice for the policies to be configured.
>>
>> So it seems to me that "Standard Track" may not be the right
>> classification for this
>> document.  "Deployment recommendation or Practice" might be more
>> appropriate.
>>
>> Thanks.  -- Enke
>>
>> On 4/19/17 9:49 AM, John G. Scudder 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
>>
>
>