Skip to main content

Default External BGP (EBGP) Route Propagation Behavior without Policies

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,, Christopher Morrow <>,,,,
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-08.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies'
  (draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Global Routing Operations Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Benoit Claise.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document defines the default behavior of a BGP speaker when
   there is no import or export policy associated with an External BGP

Working Group Summary

This document describes a change in default (or a standardization of a default) behavior; no changes in protocols expected.
Basically this says that implementations MUST consider a deny-all policy if nothing is explicitly configured / act as though the peer is not fully configured until policy is applied.

Document Quality

   Cisco IOS-XR already has this as the default behavior. Nokia is planning on making this the default. Patches have been submitted to various open-source implementations.
   This document is a product of the GROW WG. During the IETF LC, Alvaro Retana (RTG AD) noted that this could be interpreted as updating RFC4271, and so IDR should be explicitly included in the LC. IDR was notified, and the IETF LC extended to allow for additional review. A significant discussion (~200 email) then occurred on the IDR list. John Scudder (one of the IDR chairs) provided a useful summary here: - this summary confirmed Warren Kumari (OpsAD)'s judgment of consensus (and double-checked by Alvaro, IDR / BESS AD).

  The authors have updated the document in response to the discussions;  Updates: 4271 (if approved), includes a Transition Considerations appendix, has an improved Security Considerations section and multiple other edits. The authors are very grateful for the energy that was invested in making the document a success, and view the changes as improving the document. 


Document Shepherd:
Responsible Area Director:

RFC Editor Note