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

TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com> Thu, 04 February 2021 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tulasiramireddy@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 4AE553A14E8; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 05:53:51 -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 k9ioNUEHJTKx; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 05:53:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (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 476EC3A14FD; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 05:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id o12so3396742ote.12; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 05:53:48 -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=RykFPmrBfSZLyc4pAkyyhNr2hiOjq581jTgVcR73jHI=; b=d5Q0Oh2yR12MQaaUWlpUX8x8lTV4S2P1QcDDG18d8JSSaAEMzA5qYgwsqYQ68MfzDo fK4zWyfWPFf0DJZfJMoEbELLCUDlHDxU84LL5eG8Q2jcxnUs4WtxefluU7292p1SGQu5 Uo1RFRzcfRgSCRsctcO2DPxqzG/RO3+gCgwwKEkCYZS9X5DPvJWr+i+EVEslMTKEEOVW +OU2g+p/1D+jkqHlTOxykogqrXcmnKcn9G08gpuchXjxKbaw+lpTa3c56hP1MG1/RZf8 HjBUJ24FTKe0uNX6bUFSX41YTNfBLz2l5F3SHXq9Ia/L79fbDnebn5bNom/fAWn8KoEV ZHgg==
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=RykFPmrBfSZLyc4pAkyyhNr2hiOjq581jTgVcR73jHI=; b=cmnNwnFUeQU1N++fUgNWB8KZkiAQL0qfXBKZmggdubhJXyyfAqS6lAHqXM+PpfWlWP /7QLR1xo6kYSR7Gebe1C45aQSEkFmW//np5DC6j9GWX1asCYI4NUk6M0Tih8qFKDDCDS tZ7r2RXNDkxDrza0jTOLNUjGKX4uUhE7QfOGp2SaTuEr0qr7MrA2jv0qVy0PO1+hVdQX WoFvF7DaF/MHd6GAXdv1an2YuqTEf/nHvvA2XbYQcd6pz1kigrCv3oiCOFhe5UTWDnD1 o0QSn0egHgJ4ulqHKAV3GxGZ2UhmJeBV02vxRjVjkkPZbTmWXyyVZhqRXKq0nw4n1Xo9 NAGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336R3c/tfsH9j4WeomnT5cqEeg663V398cLqqiX2Dji4CuokpDG yV3HhBL/WzB9pcJACcQEEkLRxbQAti3ajZIVKiI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytQPsFQwcnz9zhYb+0UBL1ZB0126bqXRIvsyldq/0+OZKdpQVhN/Xm0BaGv/+ASai27L2c7KrhMaWqayQk3gc=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6f17:: with SMTP id n23mr5743614otq.371.1612446827601; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 05:53:47 -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>
In-Reply-To: <B2D570AE-DA5C-4D6B-946F-2B7DBDF30124@cisco.com>
From: TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 19:23:36 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+JENaLhGnciajhPJksWw0Zctz-DaSU8s6h498WkPTEWPQA2+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060e2b005ba8308d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VtfuA2mbfeoD2OuRKbESc3rfIWM>
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 13:53:58 -0000

 Hi All,

So, we can also assume the below "IP address of the PE" requirement for
Type 1 RD of EAD per AS
is not true in pure IPv6 only AS.
This should be read as any AS wide unique 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero
integer (similar to RFC6286).

>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.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:39 PM 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  *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>


-- 
TULASI RAMI REDDY N