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

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 05 February 2021 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D353A19E5; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:23:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2n8trXw51gBM; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:23:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FAED3A19E4; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:23:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id nm1so2667102pjb.3; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:23:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ik5XMjISHr6Ok5+0ndGf9s5THaTN/i4AhBBWVl8gVdY=; b=kKNy3JwbpuScGdlmKNp8x/UTq04KQFaYEwGjBp/f/Vs8MeYlOCYjOKbDpf+5TO9LtW RGrOWdn/ryVQ2Yxd7XU4KJ9xu7cu6lgu1gKC0NW3SEZ2D537aJTuhPTKbLPNvT2tAAae fOwD3ykRhFTkK4aOUwsbp7Y3CJh40UK5DLqedBTHcK5eiCz/pEymCk/MS1Lplh+V62dc WaD3ixaKkBiwHjpsThb/6ESEAmC0zEFlkTjSZ+cn2AW/nCP7XAUM0Vs0rXrZkpETdbhJ JmVbMgFhdXP/kvzZU6+TuQIRg/h0Q9yMILuNiFkdLEwEsa/ijYTHGHAklXkTaN76x4dq S2jg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ik5XMjISHr6Ok5+0ndGf9s5THaTN/i4AhBBWVl8gVdY=; b=UPBbPk3jFp9/oLtx977qK/3tEifbgQmIyza0j8ZiYviMhOna6u5iJXUnYyTbDIB0Sr /m9KNi4IIpjQj2Ncm1dm0K/COJ3UWbQOzTA/86wTqWlEdPgKze9cTzR84qUEO0UGDejj Iy/IYiwwjZ1EJTtl0zIPQLag4zPGyN4GA7mLfoo6TYL74xGwOHh3BZ673s6QXWF/WEfL elaUMUOPE8HSI25aEfl3z152uFh2Oq8L1OlUUnSME24FPJox5xcqR/nABEW1r2iYgfDB A1deIearyFuvarIlm83EKV2bV7r9UA6/p9VXPSBDI6NdMlL9BfrKEUu1Hf53n0f48Nyp jPIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306s0Mvh9blcqBklJMcAWTuySWm0F/E0sI61KidZrLqUEcV9SNL LigHuy4UumEwaxwzC9PcOtIrskdxG7jo8OnGFtQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpri4mPe1nkccBYTcWVs9vATQXEqjhIta4V5XSRzgyS7CPDWNM5vIsmM0D5N7r5GqGYbm8NDUTpnX2qlTYpD8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8507:b029:e2:9e80:1f54 with SMTP id bj7-20020a1709028507b02900e29e801f54mr1765289plb.74.1612484622606; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:23:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+JENaK55mrR0hDEbTC62kASxTLtEfbmRkWh-VUhRU3oPQcBVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKz0y8zOjsHS-_Nm7b_AYVy93zE4aDxvKJ+iTBtMDmdP5SCCoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3Jy_gH351+COn-ta14T5WVb0aixb9598nHHrJceOyz_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKz0y8zDkZ9q5f5B7VWdmtSwoXtDhuYzfTRyMpd52-=vpHsOrw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2=utxO62LMD1im7-Ts0hsKT83YQy_3cBtnu0xLVecRbQ@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB3207A4080A64B6C632617D5EC0B39@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV3RdEyrKtsb4T76DDMs-v3wKwXQW_2OAun-wUNOht1cNA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB3207E567032CC054C12FCDDFC0B39@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <B2D570AE-DA5C-4D6B-946F-2B7DBDF30124@cisco.com> <CABNhwV3X5NUH9dpxhKraHN5oej1B2dZgf5H8b1CBt=P-K76PKA@mail.gmail.com> <C6141779-30F2-46A4-932D-D9792D1D6D34@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C6141779-30F2-46A4-932D-D9792D1D6D34@cisco.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 19:23:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2WwrtiMdzKBJHgHuSknACwnKn0kP7KwFvJPDXRHityvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>, TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022e72605ba8bd5f9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/A42XiVEWeYD03FpkSQAeu7WKrVQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:23:46 -0000

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) <jheitz@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 <hayabusagsm@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) <acee@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-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)"
>> <jheitz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> *Date: *Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 12:52 AM
>> *To: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>>
>> *Cc: *TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com>om>, Muthu Arul Mozhi
>> Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>om>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>rg>, IDR
>> List <idr@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 <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:42 PM
>> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
>> *Cc:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>om>; TULASI RAM REDDY <
>> tulasiramireddy@gmail.com>gt;; bess@ietf.org; idr@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) <jheitz@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