Re: [Idr] BGP Auto-Discovery Protocol State Requirements

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

The MD5 was in context to auto PE-CE eBGP peering on the RFC4364 VRFs. Not
DC under the same operations.

> The proposal must be able to support GTSM, or no GTSM.

Respectfully I have a different opinion.  That should be part of
provisioning the auto peer template. Nothing to do with auto discovery.

Thx,
R.


On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:22:05PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > >
> > > As noted at the beginning of this thread, you may not be able to get
> your
> > > SYN+ACK if you don't agree on security mechanisms or GTSM.  So, you
> need
> > > that state either in your discovery mechanism, or your provisioning.
> > >
> >
> > You keep bringing GTSM here.
> >
> > Aren't both DC nodes we are to establish a BGP session between under the
> > very same administration ? I don't get the need to put this in
> > auto discovery if we are sticking to the scope.
>
> You've already given an example of a provider you've worked with in this
> context that wanted to use TCP-MD5.  The same question could be asked
> there.
>
> *YOU* may think it's out of scope.  That doesn't mean other providers do.
>
> The proposal must be able to support GTSM, or no GTSM.  If, for some
> reason,
> you are thinking the draft says you MUST use GTSM and you MUST use BFD,
> that
> is not the intent of the text.
>
> -- Jeff
>