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

Not sure, it was just a question..will let Gyan comment if there are
devices out there that don't support RFC6286..

Regards,
Muthu

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:21 AM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Why preclude RFC 6286 ?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Muthu Arul Mozhi
> Perumal
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:21 PM
> *To:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com>; bess@ietf.org;
> idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
>
>
>
> 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 Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike  *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>
>