[bess] questions regarding RFC8950
Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> Wed, 08 January 2025 10:55 UTC
Return-Path: <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA0AC14F711 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 02:55:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ElWInFe9cJs0 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 02:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from diehard.n-r-g.com (diehard.n-r-g.com [62.48.3.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6FAC151077 for <bess@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 02:55:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 35624 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Jan 2025 10:55:19 -0000
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 11:55:19 +0100
From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
To: bess@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Z35Zl4FzppSxzqoV@diehard.n-r-g.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID-Hash: IDP6VPU4GERYCIN6QOBHCYZVQLKN73ZT
X-Message-ID-Hash: IDP6VPU4GERYCIN6QOBHCYZVQLKN73ZT
X-MailFrom: cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-bess.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [bess] questions regarding RFC8950
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/GVh1lmpAd5tlr5iPdMIRUMzveA0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:bess-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bess-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bess-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Bess, I want to implement RFC8950 but reading that document leaves me with more questionmarks then I would like. In my case the the primary concern is to use IPv6 nexthops for SAFI 1 (unicast). Now AFI/SAFI 1/1 (IPv4 unicast) does not use MP encoding but rfc8950 requires it to use it. My questions: - Is the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute only used if the nexthop is IPv6? - What if the path is using a IPv4 nexthop, should that also use MP_REACH_NLRI or fall back to the old RFC4271 encoding using the NEXTHOP attribute? - Also what about withdraws? Are those encoded using MP_UNREACH_NLRI? - How much of a hodgepodge of encodings do we need to accept? Right now we do not accept either MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI for AFI/SAFI 1/1 and RFC8950 does not really explain what has to be done in this case. Cheers -- :wq Claudio
- [bess] questions regarding RFC8950 Claudio Jeker