Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-04 Thread Gyan Mishra 
I was thinking a CLI knob but RFC 6286 updates RFC 4271 which sounds like
new default behavior change with a upgrade.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:16 AM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
wrote:

> There's no knob for RFC 6286. RID cannot be assumed to be unique across
> ASes. Period. Well, unless you have control over all the ASes. What do you
> mean by the knob exactly?
>
> Regards,
> Jakob.
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2021, at 6:55 AM, Gyan Mishra  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> Hi Acee
>
> Understood the uniqueness by ASN,RID per RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier
> for the IPv6 only SRv6 core use case.
>
> What I am uncomfortable as an operator with is the AS wide BGP identifier
> on every core router using the RFC 6286 knob for the SRv6 use case.  If we
> could continue to use unique IPv4 address  on every core router in the SRv6
> IPv6 only core use case I would be more comfortable then using the RFC 6286
> knob.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 6:09 AM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>> Agree with Jakob. There is no reason for the BGP Identifier to be a
>> unique IPv4 address. Consider an IPv6 only AS. However, there is nothing
>> precluding you from using an IPv4 address if you are uncomfortable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *BESS  on behalf of "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)"
>> 
>> *Date: *Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 12:52 AM
>> *To: *Gyan Mishra 
>>
>> *Cc: *TULASI RAM REDDY , Muthu Arul Mozhi
>> Perumal , "bess@ietf.org" , IDR
>> List 
>> *Subject: *Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
>>
>>
>>
>> RFC 6286 already updates RFC 4271.
>>
>> Basically, RID is not unique. (ASN,RID) is unique. The only limitation on
>> RID is that RID != 0.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jakob.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gyan Mishra 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM
>> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
>> *Cc:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal ; TULASI RAM REDDY <
>> tulasiramire...@gmail.com>; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>>a valid unicast IP host address.
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>  Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2
>>
>>
>>
>>If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically
>>
>>incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.
>>
>>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>>
>>a valid unicast IP host address.
>>
>>
>>
>> BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code 
>> validate the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but
>>
>> and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
>> router-id would all the BGP peers go down.
>>
>> I will try that in the lab.
>>
>>
>>
>> IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule.
>> IOS-XR implements RFC 6286.
>>
>> I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.
>>
>>  Gyan> Agreed.  That is exactly what I thought.  I was going to try on
>> IOS XR but you saved me some time and results as I expected.  I will try
>> test RFC 6286 on XR.  Have you tried doing IPv6 only peers on XR and with
>> BGP identifier set unique to 4 octet IP address and see if that works.  I
>> am guessing it would work as XR does not have the check.
>>
>>
>>
>> I  am not crazy about the RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier with 4
>> octet unsigned non zero integer.  Most operators are more comfortable
>> having unique 4 octet IP address as BGP identifier and I think would much
>> rather do that as long as the check does not exist as even with enabling
>> RFC 6286 and having AS wide unique identifier seems odd and scary to me as
>> normally the BGP identifier must always be unique within the domain or
>> breaks BGP.
>>
>>
>>
>> dual stack edge over v6 core RFC 5565 is becoming more common for
>> operators every day with SRv6 push and thus IPv6 only routers and running
>> into this issue where now you have to enable RFC 6286.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-04 Thread Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
There's no knob for RFC 6286. RID cannot be assumed to be unique across ASes. 
Period. Well, unless you have control over all the ASes. What do you mean by 
the knob exactly?

Regards,
Jakob.


On Feb 4, 2021, at 6:55 AM, Gyan Mishra  wrote:



Hi Acee

Understood the uniqueness by ASN,RID per RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier for 
the IPv6 only SRv6 core use case.

What I am uncomfortable as an operator with is the AS wide BGP identifier on 
every core router using the RFC 6286 knob for the SRv6 use case.  If we could 
continue to use unique IPv4 address  on every core router in the SRv6 IPv6 only 
core use case I would be more comfortable then using the RFC 6286 knob.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 6:09 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Gyan,
Agree with Jakob. There is no reason for the BGP Identifier to be a unique IPv4 
address. Consider an IPv6 only AS. However, there is nothing precluding you 
from using an IPv4 address if you are uncomfortable.

Thanks,
Acee

From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" 
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 12:52 AM
To: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>
Cc: TULASI RAM REDDY 
mailto:tulasiramire...@gmail.com>>, Muthu Arul Mozhi 
Perumal mailto:muthu.a...@gmail.com>>, 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
IDR List mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

RFC 6286 already updates RFC 4271.
Basically, RID is not unique. (ASN,RID) is unique. The only limitation on RID 
is that RID != 0.

Regards,
Jakob.

From: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) mailto:jhe...@cisco.com>>
Cc: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
mailto:muthu.a...@gmail.com>>; TULASI RAM REDDY 
mailto:tulasiramire...@gmail.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN



On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
mailto:jhe...@cisco.com>> wrote:

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
   a valid unicast IP host address.


 Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2



   If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically

   incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents

   a valid unicast IP host address.



BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code validate 
the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but

and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
router-id would all the BGP peers go down.

I will try that in the lab.

IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule. IOS-XR 
implements RFC 6286.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.
 Gyan> Agreed.  That is exactly what I thought.  I was going to try on IOS XR 
but you saved me some time and results as I expected.  I will try test RFC 6286 
on XR.  Have you tried doing IPv6 only peers on XR and with BGP identifier set 
unique to 4 octet IP address and see if that works.  I am guessing it would 
work as XR does not have the check.

I  am not crazy about the RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier with 4 octet 
unsigned non zero integer.  Most operators are more comfortable having unique 4 
octet IP address as BGP identifier and I think would much rather do that as 
long as the check does not exist as even with enabling RFC 6286 and having AS 
wide unique identifier seems odd and scary to me as normally the BGP identifier 
must always be unique within the domain or breaks BGP.

dual stack edge over v6 core RFC 5565 is becoming more common for operators 
every day with SRv6 push and thus IPv6 only routers and running into this issue 
where now you have to enable RFC 6286.

I am thinking it maybe well worthwhile to write a draft that updates RFC 4271 
check as vendors don’t follow it anyway and as we all know not checking is not 
going to break anything and making so that for IPv6 only routers such as in a 
SRv6 core that the BGP identifier can remain a 4 octet IP and then operators 
now could keep the same unique BGP identifier IP you had on the router before 
you ripped it out of the core when transitioned to SRv6.
Regards,
Jakob.

--

[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia 
Pike<https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail=g>
Silver Spring, MD

--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 C

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-04 Thread Gyan Mishra 
Hi Acee

Understood the uniqueness by ASN,RID per RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier
for the IPv6 only SRv6 core use case.

What I am uncomfortable as an operator with is the AS wide BGP identifier
on every core router using the RFC 6286 knob for the SRv6 use case.  If we
could continue to use unique IPv4 address  on every core router in the SRv6
IPv6 only core use case I would be more comfortable then using the RFC 6286
knob.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 6:09 AM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> Agree with Jakob. There is no reason for the BGP Identifier to be a unique
> IPv4 address. Consider an IPv6 only AS. However, there is nothing
> precluding you from using an IPv4 address if you are uncomfortable.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS  on behalf of "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)"
> 
> *Date: *Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 12:52 AM
> *To: *Gyan Mishra 
>
> *Cc: *TULASI RAM REDDY , Muthu Arul Mozhi
> Perumal , "bess@ietf.org" , IDR List
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
>
>
>
> RFC 6286 already updates RFC 4271.
>
> Basically, RID is not unique. (ASN,RID) is unique. The only limitation on
> RID is that RID != 0.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
> *Cc:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal ; TULASI RAM REDDY <
> tulasiramire...@gmail.com>; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>a valid unicast IP host address.
>
> 
>
>
>
>  Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2
>
>
>
>If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically
>
>incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.
>
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>
>a valid unicast IP host address.
>
>
>
> BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code 
> validate the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but
>
> and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
> router-id would all the BGP peers go down.
>
> I will try that in the lab.
>
>
>
> IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule.
> IOS-XR implements RFC 6286.
>
> I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.
>
>  Gyan> Agreed.  That is exactly what I thought.  I was going to try on IOS
> XR but you saved me some time and results as I expected.  I will try test
> RFC 6286 on XR.  Have you tried doing IPv6 only peers on XR and with BGP
> identifier set unique to 4 octet IP address and see if that works.  I am
> guessing it would work as XR does not have the check.
>
>
>
> I  am not crazy about the RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier with 4 octet
> unsigned non zero integer.  Most operators are more comfortable having
> unique 4 octet IP address as BGP identifier and I think would much rather
> do that as long as the check does not exist as even with enabling RFC 6286
> and having AS wide unique identifier seems odd and scary to me as normally
> the BGP identifier must always be unique within the domain or breaks BGP.
>
>
>
> dual stack edge over v6 core RFC 5565 is becoming more common for
> operators every day with SRv6 push and thus IPv6 only routers and running
> into this issue where now you have to enable RFC 6286.
>
>
>
> I am thinking it maybe well worthwhile to write a draft that updates RFC
> 4271 check as vendors don’t follow it anyway and as we all know not
> checking is not going to break anything and making so that for IPv6 only
> routers such as in a SRv6 core that the BGP identifier can remain a 4 octet
> IP and then operators now could keep the same unique BGP identifier IP you
> had on the router before you ripped it out of the core when transitioned to
> SRv6.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail=g>
> *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-04 Thread TULASI RAM REDDY 
 Hi All,

So, we can also assume the below "IP address of the PE" requirement for
Type 1 RD of EAD per AS
is not true in pure IPv6 only AS.
This should be read as any AS wide unique 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero
integer (similar to RFC6286).

>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.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:39 PM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> Agree with Jakob. There is no reason for the BGP Identifier to be a unique
> IPv4 address. Consider an IPv6 only AS. However, there is nothing
> precluding you from using an IPv4 address if you are uncomfortable.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS  on behalf of "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)"
> 
> *Date: *Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 12:52 AM
> *To: *Gyan Mishra 
> *Cc: *TULASI RAM REDDY , Muthu Arul Mozhi
> Perumal , "bess@ietf.org" , IDR List
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
>
>
>
> RFC 6286 already updates RFC 4271.
>
> Basically, RID is not unique. (ASN,RID) is unique. The only limitation on
> RID is that RID != 0.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
> *Cc:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal ; TULASI RAM REDDY <
> tulasiramire...@gmail.com>; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>a valid unicast IP host address.
>
> 
>
>
>
>  Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2
>
>
>
>If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically
>
>incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.
>
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>
>a valid unicast IP host address.
>
>
>
> BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code 
> validate the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but
>
> and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
> router-id would all the BGP peers go down.
>
> I will try that in the lab.
>
>
>
> IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule.
> IOS-XR implements RFC 6286.
>
> I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.
>
>  Gyan> Agreed.  That is exactly what I thought.  I was going to try on IOS
> XR but you saved me some time and results as I expected.  I will try test
> RFC 6286 on XR.  Have you tried doing IPv6 only peers on XR and with BGP
> identifier set unique to 4 octet IP address and see if that works.  I am
> guessing it would work as XR does not have the check.
>
>
>
> I  am not crazy about the RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier with 4 octet
> unsigned non zero integer.  Most operators are more comfortable having
> unique 4 octet IP address as BGP identifier and I think would much rather
> do that as long as the check does not exist as even with enabling RFC 6286
> and having AS wide unique identifier seems odd and scary to me as normally
> the BGP identifier must always be unique within the domain or breaks BGP.
>
>
>
> dual stack edge over v6 core RFC 5565 is becoming more common for
> operators every day with SRv6 push and thus IPv6 only routers and running
> into this issue where now you have to enable RFC 6286.
>
>
>
> I am thinking it maybe well worthwhile to write a draft that updates RFC
> 4271 check as vendors don’t follow it anyway and as we all know not
> checking is not going to break anything and making so that for IPv6 only
> routers such as in a SRv6 core that the BGP identifier can remain a 4 octet
> IP and then operators now could keep the same unique BGP identifier IP you
> had on the router before you ripped it out of the core when transitioned to
> SRv6.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike  *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>


-- 
TULASI RAMI REDDY N
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-04 Thread Acee Lindem (acee) 
Hi Gyan,
Agree with Jakob. There is no reason for the BGP Identifier to be a unique IPv4 
address. Consider an IPv6 only AS. However, there is nothing precluding you 
from using an IPv4 address if you are uncomfortable.

Thanks,
Acee

From: BESS  on behalf of "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" 

Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 12:52 AM
To: Gyan Mishra 
Cc: TULASI RAM REDDY , Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
, "bess@ietf.org" , IDR List 

Subject: Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

RFC 6286 already updates RFC 4271.
Basically, RID is not unique. (ASN,RID) is unique. The only limitation on RID 
is that RID != 0.

Regards,
Jakob.

From: Gyan Mishra 
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
Cc: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal ; TULASI RAM REDDY 
; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN



On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
mailto:jhe...@cisco.com>> wrote:

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
   a valid unicast IP host address.


 Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2



   If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically

   incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents

   a valid unicast IP host address.



BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code validate 
the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but

and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
router-id would all the BGP peers go down.

I will try that in the lab.

IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule. IOS-XR 
implements RFC 6286.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.
 Gyan> Agreed.  That is exactly what I thought.  I was going to try on IOS XR 
but you saved me some time and results as I expected.  I will try test RFC 6286 
on XR.  Have you tried doing IPv6 only peers on XR and with BGP identifier set 
unique to 4 octet IP address and see if that works.  I am guessing it would 
work as XR does not have the check.

I  am not crazy about the RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier with 4 octet 
unsigned non zero integer.  Most operators are more comfortable having unique 4 
octet IP address as BGP identifier and I think would much rather do that as 
long as the check does not exist as even with enabling RFC 6286 and having AS 
wide unique identifier seems odd and scary to me as normally the BGP identifier 
must always be unique within the domain or breaks BGP.

dual stack edge over v6 core RFC 5565 is becoming more common for operators 
every day with SRv6 push and thus IPv6 only routers and running into this issue 
where now you have to enable RFC 6286.

I am thinking it maybe well worthwhile to write a draft that updates RFC 4271 
check as vendors don’t follow it anyway and as we all know not checking is not 
going to break anything and making so that for IPv6 only routers such as in a 
SRv6 core that the BGP identifier can remain a 4 octet IP and then operators 
now could keep the same unique BGP identifier IP you had on the router before 
you ripped it out of the core when transitioned to SRv6.
Regards,
Jakob.

--

[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-03 Thread Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
RFC 6286 already updates RFC 4271.
Basically, RID is not unique. (ASN,RID) is unique. The only limitation on RID 
is that RID != 0.

Regards,
Jakob.

From: Gyan Mishra 
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
Cc: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal ; TULASI RAM REDDY 
; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN



On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
mailto:jhe...@cisco.com>> wrote:

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
   a valid unicast IP host address.


 Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2



   If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically

   incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents

   a valid unicast IP host address.



BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code validate 
the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but

and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
router-id would all the BGP peers go down.

I will try that in the lab.

IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule. IOS-XR 
implements RFC 6286.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.
 Gyan> Agreed.  That is exactly what I thought.  I was going to try on IOS XR 
but you saved me some time and results as I expected.  I will try test RFC 6286 
on XR.  Have you tried doing IPv6 only peers on XR and with BGP identifier set 
unique to 4 octet IP address and see if that works.  I am guessing it would 
work as XR does not have the check.

I  am not crazy about the RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier with 4 octet 
unsigned non zero integer.  Most operators are more comfortable having unique 4 
octet IP address as BGP identifier and I think would much rather do that as 
long as the check does not exist as even with enabling RFC 6286 and having AS 
wide unique identifier seems odd and scary to me as normally the BGP identifier 
must always be unique within the domain or breaks BGP.

dual stack edge over v6 core RFC 5565 is becoming more common for operators 
every day with SRv6 push and thus IPv6 only routers and running into this issue 
where now you have to enable RFC 6286.

I am thinking it maybe well worthwhile to write a draft that updates RFC 4271 
check as vendors don’t follow it anyway and as we all know not checking is not 
going to break anything and making so that for IPv6 only routers such as in a 
SRv6 core that the BGP identifier can remain a 4 octet IP and then operators 
now could keep the same unique BGP identifier IP you had on the router before 
you ripped it out of the core when transitioned to SRv6.
Regards,
Jakob.

--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-03 Thread Gyan Mishra 
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
wrote:

> 
>
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>a valid unicast IP host address.
>
> 
>
>
>
>  Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2
>
>
>
>If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically
>
>incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.
>
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>
>a valid unicast IP host address.
>
>
>
> BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code 
> validate the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but
>
> and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
> router-id would all the BGP peers go down.
>
> I will try that in the lab.
>
>
>
> IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule.
> IOS-XR implements RFC 6286.
>
> I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.
>
>  Gyan> Agreed.  That is exactly what I thought.  I was going to try on IOS
> XR but you saved me some time and results as I expected.  I will try test
> RFC 6286 on XR.  Have you tried doing IPv6 only peers on XR and with BGP
> identifier set unique to 4 octet IP address and see if that works.  I am
> guessing it would work as XR does not have the check.
>

I  am not crazy about the RFC 6286 AS wide BGP identifier with 4 octet
unsigned non zero integer.  Most operators are more comfortable having
unique 4 octet IP address as BGP identifier and I think would much rather
do that as long as the check does not exist as even with enabling RFC 6286
and having AS wide unique identifier seems odd and scary to me as normally
the BGP identifier must always be unique within the domain or breaks BGP.

dual stack edge over v6 core RFC 5565 is becoming more common for operators
every day with SRv6 push and thus IPv6 only routers and running into this
issue where now you have to enable RFC 6286.

I am thinking it maybe well worthwhile to write a draft that updates RFC
4271 check as vendors don’t follow it anyway and as we all know not
checking is not going to break anything and making so that for IPv6 only
routers such as in a SRv6 core that the BGP identifier can remain a 4 octet
IP and then operators now could keep the same unique BGP identifier IP you
had on the router before you ripped it out of the core when transitioned to
SRv6.

> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
-- 



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-03 Thread Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
   a valid unicast IP host address.


 Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2



   If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically

   incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.

   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents

   a valid unicast IP host address.



BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code validate 
the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but

and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a bogus 
router-id would all the BGP peers go down.

I will try that in the lab.

IOS-XR does not have this check. Nothing breaks by violating this rule. IOS-XR 
implements RFC 6286.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find a router that checks this.

Regards,
Jakob.

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-03 Thread Gyan Mishra 
Hi Muthu

Please see in-line

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:20 AM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <
muthu.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> Please see inline..
> Regards,
> Muthu
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:26 AM Gyan Mishra  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.
>

Gyan> So with RFC 6286 the 4 octet unsigned could be any number from 1
to 4.2 billion.  I see in the remarks that the BGP identifier is to use RFC
4271 process for path selection resolution.

 In the route selection, where the BGP Identifier is not used in
 comparing a route from an internal neighbor and a route from an
 external neighbor.  In addition, routes from BGP speakers with
 identical BGP Identifiers have been dealt with (e.g., parallel BGP
 sessions between two BGP speakers).


When you are comparing two paths with the same router-id and you convert to
host byte order and treat as unsigned integer per RFC 4271 can you give an
example of how that would work.  I am not following the verbiage.  If the
BGP identifier is the same AS wide would the host byte order be the same
for each BGP speaker?

 The BGP Identifier of the local system is compared to the BGP
 Identifier of the remote system (as specified in the OPEN
 message).  Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by converting them
 to host byte order and treating them as 4-octet unsigned
 integers.


>
>>
>> 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):
>
> 
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>a valid unicast IP host address.
> 
>
>
 Gyan> I do see that verbiage in section 6.2


   If the BGP Identifier field of the OPEN message is syntactically
   incorrect, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier.
   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
   a valid unicast IP host address.


BGP with IGP call back NH tracker checks the NH but how does BGP code
validate the RIB that the router-id is a connected loopback but

and also advertised by IGP.  I have not tried it but if you set a
bogus router-id would all the BGP peers go down.

I will try that in the lab.



>>
>> 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 <
>> muthu.a...@gmail.com> 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 <
>>> tulasiramire...@gmail.com> 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 .  Constructing 
 Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route

The Route Distinguisher (RD) MUST be a Type 1 RD [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
 BESS@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

>>> ___
>>> Idr mailing list
>>> i...@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>
>> --
>>
>> 
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-134713101

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-03 Thread Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
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) 
wrote:

> Why preclude RFC 6286 ?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr  *On Behalf Of * Muthu Arul Mozhi
> Perumal
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:21 PM
> *To:* Gyan Mishra 
> *Cc:* TULASI RAM REDDY ; bess@ietf.org;
> i...@ietf.org
> *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  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):
>
>
>
> 
>
>Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
>a valid unicast IP host address.
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <
> muthu.a...@gmail.com> 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 <
> tulasiramire...@gmail.com> 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
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
> ___
> Idr mailing list
> i...@ietf.org
> 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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-02 Thread Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
Why preclude RFC 6286 ?

Regards,
Jakob.

From: Idr  On Behalf Of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:21 PM
To: Gyan Mishra 
Cc: TULASI RAM REDDY ; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
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 
mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>> 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):


   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
   a valid unicast IP host address.




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 
mailto:muthu.a...@gmail.com>> 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 
mailto:tulasiramire...@gmail.com>> 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
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
Idr mailing list
i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-02-02 Thread Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
Hi Gyan,

Please see inline..
Regards,
Muthu

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:26 AM Gyan Mishra  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):


   Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents
   a valid unicast IP host address.



>
>
> 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 <
> muthu.a...@gmail.com> 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 <
>> tulasiramire...@gmail.com> 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 .  Constructing 
>>> Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route
>>>
>>>The Route Distinguisher (RD) MUST be a Type 1 RD [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
>>> BESS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>>
>> ___
>> Idr mailing list
>> i...@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
> --
>
> 
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-01-29 Thread Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 
Note that the BGP identifier is not guaranteed to be unique across ASes, only 
within a single AS.

Regards,
Jakob.

From: BESS  On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:56 PM
To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
Cc: TULASI RAM REDDY ; bess@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

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.

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.

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 
mailto:muthu.a...@gmail.com>> 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 
mailto:tulasiramire...@gmail.com>> 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
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
Idr mailing list
i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] [Idr] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN

2021-01-29 Thread Gyan Mishra 
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.

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.

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 <
muthu.a...@gmail.com> 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 <
> tulasiramire...@gmail.com> 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 .  Constructing 
>> Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route
>>
>>The Route Distinguisher (RD) MUST be a Type 1 RD [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
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
> ___
> Idr mailing list
> i...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
-- 



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess