Not sure, it was just a question..will let Gyan comment if there are devices out there that don't support RFC6286..
Regards, Muthu On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:21 AM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]> wrote: > Why preclude RFC 6286 ? > > > > Regards, > > Jakob. > > > > *From:* Idr <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Muthu Arul Mozhi > Perumal > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:21 PM > *To:* Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> > *Cc:* TULASI RAM REDDY <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN > > > > Hi Gyan, > > > > Please see inline.. > > Regards, > > Muthu > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:26 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: > > Muthu > > > > How does RFa. 6286 AS wide BGP identifier change the BGP path selection > process when all attributes are equal and ‘bestpath compare-routerid” is > uses so the valid/best path is deterministic and oldest versus newest > default. > > The AS wide BGP identifier shouldn't change the BGP path selection process > in this case, since you compare by converting them to host byte order and > treating them as 4-octet unsigned integers as per RFC4271. > > > > > > > > I believe the BGP Identifier just as with OSPF or ISIS does not have to be > routable, so in an IPv6 only network precluding RFC 6286 I believe could > you still use a 4 octet IP address as the router-id. > > > > Right. However, if we preclude RFC6286, then the BGP identifier needs to > be a valid unicast host IPv4 address (for e.g. can't be a multicast > address): > > > > <snip RFC4271> > > Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents > a valid unicast IP host address. > > </snip> > > > > > > > > This question comes up a lot these days as operations migrate to some > flavor of IPv6 only core MPLS LDPv6, SR-MPLSv6, SRv6. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Gyan > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 5:45 AM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tulasi, > > > In pure IPv6 networks, I think using the BGP identifier in place of the IP > address part in the type 1 RD should suffice for all practical purposes. > The only catch is, if it is an AS-wide unique BGP identifier [RFC6286], > then it is not an IP address 'per se'. But, I think it makes no difference > from an interoperability standpoint.. > > Perhaps, in line with RFC6286, we should redefine the IP address part of > the type 1 RD as just a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer.. > > Regards, > > Muthu > > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:31 AM TULASI RAM REDDY < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > In a pure IPv6 network, how do one expect to construct the Type 1 RD. > > As per EVPN RFC 7432 for EAD per ES, it should be Type 1 RD, but if the > loopback address is only IPv6 then what is the expectation here? > > Should we use BGP router ID(32bit) here? > > > > From RFC7432: EVPN > 8.2.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7432#section-8.2.1>. Constructing > Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route > > The Route Distinguisher (RD) MUST be a Type 1 RD [RFC4364 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4364>]. The > > *value field comprises an IP address of the PE (typically, the* > > * loopback address)* followed by a number unique to the PE. > > > > Thanks, > > TULASI RAMI REDDY N > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > > > *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD > > > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
