Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-02.txt

Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net> Wed, 16 November 2016 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BDB129648 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:42:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 yadD8CbGJgvB for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DEC12961F for <grow@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by puck.nether.net (Postfix, from userid 507) id 94B14540A2D; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:42:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:42:19 -0500
From: Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
To: grow@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20161116024219.GA14873@puck.nether.net>
References: <147790586059.32393.16922234964756363252.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <147790586059.32393.16922234964756363252.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/JJAuyAkDWDfzrZSODFh9940I9wY>
Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-02.txt
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:42:21 -0000

On 31/10/16 02:24 -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>         Title           : Default IPv4 and IPv6 Unicast EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies

To hopefully increase the speed to allow operators to ask for this
behavior from their vendors, starting the thread on one of the points
still open from the presentation today:

1.  Current draft - IPv4/IPv6 unicast AFI/SAFI EBGP only
2.  All AFI/SAFI - EBGP only
3.  All AFI/SAFI - IBGP/EBGP

I think #1 makes sense as it's limited to global Internet table
protection.  I also think it would be useful to protect our internal
networks from errors with #3.  However since internal networks often use
eBGP (see large-scale DC, seamless MPLS, inter-as Option-C), I think it
would be a bit odd to cover all AFI/SAFI for EBGP only as it now covers
some internal network applications as well (widening the requirements of
what the draft is trying to achieve) w/o fulfilling protecting them
fully by covering IBGP.

-Jon