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) <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 <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" > <jheitz=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 12:52 AM > *To: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramire...@gmail.com>, Muthu Arul Mozhi > Perumal <muthu.a...@gmail.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, IDR List > <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 <hayabusa...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM > *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.a...@gmail.com>; 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) <jhe...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > <snip RFC4271> > > Syntactic correctness means that the BGP Identifier field represents > a valid unicast IP host address. > > </snip> > > > > 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
