Re: [Idr] [GROW] Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.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 02665129BEE; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 LlD6CClsjWA1; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EB3812954E; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492627523; x=1493837123; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=p+AVeaA3hTAnasw4fvvRUqp+1z3bZ5UUDl97PlgCfiQ=; b=WthQp4LpcCkc7C8tsjLRBmv2+F/O9gt7PVrc6lisxOn1kurWfv2Zdv+S zm66eAVqsoInlOw2VtR2JBRem3Mwo6VVd/YM5wMh/i/Iptk5L7xay6ONO VwcnpGEgy5Xp2v/DK/Pq25KvL72m9UMDYFfBTAEvAAc0Gc/zJRugSiBlL A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AdAQDjr/dY/4kNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1SBbAeDYIoVkWOVYoIPhiQCGoNqPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUWAQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BIxFFBQsCAQgaAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FihEIqkKCJosjAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEegQuFSIFdK4JuhFeDBi6CMQEElj6GcQGSe4IAj0yIbIskAR84gQVjFVU?= =?us-ascii?q?BhlN1h16BDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,222,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="414057898"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Apr 2017 18:45:22 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3JIjMXB017868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:45:22 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:45:21 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:45:22 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
CC: John G Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05
Thread-Index: AQHSuETpEi5RDG0LC02mWBjlM+E8lA==
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:45:21 +0000
Message-ID: <9BF858F5-5FE3-4A48-96D5-E9852518FDBC@cisco.com>
References: <27BC3D10-48EA-4751-A70A-0753B0437F8F@cisco.com> <8FA9FC06-CA1C-4738-B15A-387E2A2CE275@juniper.net> <FD44B598-060A-406D-B2EC-1AFC177CA9F8@cisco.com> <A898C59C-E82D-4423-8BFA-08FDA24132CC@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <A898C59C-E82D-4423-8BFA-08FDA24132CC@puck.nether.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4388572F8952EA458BAACE1DDE6C242D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wbXxSgXNaXn0nmVxtYkVZ6DGelo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05
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 18:45:25 -0000

On 4/19/17, 10:03 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:

Jared:

> Are you saying that IOS-XR is non-compliant with 9.1.1 because it does not have “bgp 
> unsafe-ebgp-policy” as the default?  

No.  I wasn’t talking about any specific implementation.

One of the reasons I like your document is the fact that rfc4271 is not specific about what should be done if there is no policy – it just says that policy may be applied.  From that point of view, the XR implementation is neither compliant nor non-compliant.


> At what point does the Cisco implementation make that decision?
>
> We seem to be triangulating on where in the exact decision process people are 
> considering a route feasible or ineligible, can you speak to your implementation?  That 
> may provide guidance in documenting the IOS-XR practice.

The XR implementation makes the decision while processing the Update messages.  Specifically, it drops all the routes from a peer without an incoming policy configured.  IOW, it acts as if a deny-all filter existed.

In the conceptual model in rfc4271, the routes are not even put in the Adj-RIB-In.  



Compared to the current text (in -05), there would be no routes to mark as ineligible in 9.1.1.   The text I proposed also assumed that the routes would at least be received/stored.

If you want the same behavior as XR then you would have to make the change in Section 9. (UPDATE Message Handling).

Alvaro.