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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 26 April 2017 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 3F4AF12EBDB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 e3xpUOqd6oza for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11AC12EC14 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 08:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 812B21E358; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:24:27 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170426152427.GC4803@pfrc.org>
References: <D95C67A4-AEBF-400B-A360-61C342FD6E4A@arrcus.com> <CA+b+ER=hq0=JNRfF8VA76_aqeRMBCeyQm5aTbapysXGTgaGS_g@mail.gmail.com> <50353B76-1323-4828-88D6-25954DA1E344@puck.nether.net> <20170425221104.GS30063@pfrc.org> <023e01d2be72$031ac180$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20170426095547.GP25069@Space.Net> <CA+b+ERk4FxB4KQ3N0xtjV6uaQptd=EGKdpbKcpoL2TH41fVSYg@mail.gmail.com> <20170426113954.GA18318@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ER=Ej7G1EEOQ7uBU-z7LeBAGNSfPkE5yGmo+z52ncKhVdg@mail.gmail.com> <20170426125417.GU25069@Space.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170426125417.GU25069@Space.Net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/z7GljtCmoLAdF5p5qlkV4hKWEIc>
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, 26 Apr 2017 15:17:16 -0000

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 02:54:17PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> "Shooting" would sound like an alternative and very american way to solve 
> the issue, but I'm sure that many IETF members would frown on this.

Prefix-limit is a fairly standard way to shoot the peering session.  It's a
very clumsy one though.

-- Jeff