Subject: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 05:05:28 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations of the IETF.

        Title           : Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies
        Authors         : Jared Mauch
                          Job Snijders
                          Greg Hankins
	Filename        : draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2017-04-12

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 IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:15:23 +0200

new version based on the Genart feedback.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 05:05:28AM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

---

From: "Smith, Donald" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0000

I support this draft. This comment is probably out of scope for this RFC but may need to be addressed some where, some how?
>From an operations POV how would you know if a peer is using the default behavior or has overridden it.

Or a customer as for a peer the default may be accept * ?

if (initial_ttl!=255) then (rfc5082_compliant==0)
[email-masked]

From: GROW [[email-masked]] on behalf of Job Snijders [[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:43:36 +0200

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 05:35:07PM +0000, Smith, Donald wrote:
> I support this draft. This comment is probably out of scope for this
> RFC but may need to be addressed some where, some how?

I agree it is out of scope :-)

> Or a customer as for a peer the default may be accept * ?

You'd probably want to define an ORF capability of sorts to signal such
information. You could look at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf for
inspiration on how to signal such meta-information, perhaps a new
'Cooperative Route Filter' type code to indicate the "override".

Kind regards,

Job