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

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:42:19 -0500

On 31/10/16 02:24 -0700, [email-masked] 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