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

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Wed, 03 February 2021 05:20 UTC

Return-Path: <muthu.arul@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 01B663A13EA; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 21:20:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 KwDZ1huoY2BF; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 21:20:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 865E63A13EB; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 21:20:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id e15so11349887lft.13; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 21:20:48 -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=3poIToZlFLu0LrW9Z5IWSWLs2iv5Wx1TTNX6UexG+fA=; b=IXBv8Wc9rRKGwPBNQQnaQm3wN1Tw7kuWBFQW0qPRlT3bAwFbZNdEEQ/axQBbToQVR8 xThQGOXrZ3wUyN9X9xbTH5JDlkWcmszMb2zKKaqGZUwO6HHuN/clijIYh1XZqi+r8sFz qKtAnKH8mP2dPhdEPaU+3sAQ+5Inz/FVXt3J93NMjzmJ5zoa6S8m7rr0YEm7d1W0JK3G +AUS4/01soEnJJUe2oLBzwPmbe/DeJwZxjEF9yQ9U2ODe1wDk1zenfhWj3d2SKFBWMNi LP7musU3fAJfKLFGBhelJhOD9rpP3OlmWHqAZ0q0zZTl4hw6SqVu2CjNU5WowJk6oLqB rubQ==
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=3poIToZlFLu0LrW9Z5IWSWLs2iv5Wx1TTNX6UexG+fA=; b=kUjNqDGXJKRnzQ5sIwgF/ISCwgvSCi2iXHfXZCDd28Z5RCm4m7kTPBRdfmdU1gZ6R1 qldfjfacEJiOl5hjWiWs3Bpf0+QyblLTMPM1h+kwFb5A0NditcqRvrmlKt0E051AlQgi vt1ZJ9JdBI9L8RU9AfwLQo9KnT1Vo/tHeJMqfItyMQHBfVU8DlWsDss/pofxHSPYw0M0 9zaQcUKuFnx0DKvbBM3scIjWnIDmTspl/zVuQ26vR8hnHCf0LVHDZ0PciiTK/CLlaXpl 652nNABrpNq6bfBWcG4mJhIV0ekzI+7KQYA7oxxw0sNHkykkVeMqGYUCl4d9JD2oERp3 9EAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rFUEYI4oHtnHC0zk3yV/PoGseJjbnc1YgDvjxYkta4xR2pebV DkoQuwC1n8Mf+ISWUtf+kkkoUH9J/TLutU7+0Dk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpyu7iYZN+xn1Po8IWlugfKyXpMPpOJg+Z7HlZcr7P0p/073JVC51vdRILqWdIEKpwPavP5Qa9gZCjvIeiLJo=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:2d19:: with SMTP id k25mr851759lfj.144.1612329645571; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 21:20:45 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3Jy_gH351+COn-ta14T5WVb0aixb9598nHHrJceOyz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:50:34 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8zDkZ9q5f5B7VWdmtSwoXtDhuYzfTRyMpd52-=vpHsOrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com>, bess@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c900b705ba67bf60"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AzH1QnVWW3dcvrGkZ8IdAb54Ebs>
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 05:20:51 -0000

Hi Gyan,

Please see inline..
Regards,
Muthu

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:26 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@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.arul@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 <
>> tulasiramireddy@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
>> Idr@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
>
>