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

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.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 BF25912EB9D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] 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 Ux_qT1TpG9Bp for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-f171.google.com (mail-wr0-f171.google.com [209.85.128.171]) (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 96DED12EB96 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-f171.google.com with SMTP id w50so7782387wrc.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=n8Jj/krBBPQyBoS5XN/PMforJO3tPRjRJqKI8XEjwUU=; b=N+2cimAPTEIPcPLUYQVQybj9tnZ718FGYbtCnW8zdvxAc7ikQOgXj7zlMhmW/e2Y9S wcozy+vrWPqMq5XWsmUqrIWdfJ/JubncT03XT7tU1ZlBEGKgADXzjeuE0lm1WN08jVOn LKeUNyZTXAt1sVt1od0rrL0X8/pKvij/Dpe65203NkxLtmII33qS2/tkknZt1cs+2HcD BCvDIwybXCqOakxorQs5nr6ZmcThtfXXXTuI1hd+LhhkuhZF6lwQ5KfrkGVAZiISjPzC krT4JIBbQ4tCu1MAbYxCxFAy8TQ8g/eTi27vois8t+9luUs56hDaAtk5ubTaI0kZf3ws VVNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5pUP7wmh7+ykIqnyTvLgdG4ZQBkgRmehmma1LNXkOyx9E91y+/ 0eomIgzGcmC0QA==
X-Received: by 10.223.166.146 with SMTP id t18mr6613756wrc.15.1492678991861; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:4cc4:bdef:de0c:32e0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s27sm6709427wra.25.2017.04.20.02.03.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:03:10 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: <20170420090310.gc6pjgcbosj7mdyf@hanna.meerval.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> <AF07526F-F08B-4084-937B-A9A2D2DD2813@juniper.net> <D51D6AD2.A9795%acee@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <D51D6AD2.A9795%acee@cisco.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rvX6pda8L5Z9-LQs0ybYRU7jOg4>
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 09:03:15 -0000

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:30:01PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> On 4/19/17, 7:25 PM, "John Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>; wrote:
> >(As an individual contributor)
> >
> >On Apr 19, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
> >> the draft is conspicuously missing a “Backwards Compatibility” section.
> >
> >Seriously? "Backwards compatibility" in this case is "configure your
> >router to do what it used to", right? We need a section to say that?
> 
> Anytime one proposes to change the default behavior of a decades old
> protocol to be more restrictive, I would expect this to be discussed.

This would be true if there were an actual existing default, however in
the wild we see that all kinds of implementation choices have been made.
It would also be helpful if we don't pretend that this hasn't been
discussed at length, for years.

Kind regards,

Job