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) <jhe...@cisco.com> 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 <hayabusa...@gmail.com> 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) <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 >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> >> *Silver Spring, MD >> >> >> > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > > > *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=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
