Hi Gyan, Please see inline.. Regards, Muthu
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:26 AM Gyan Mishra <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): <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 < > 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 A**rchitect * > > > > *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
