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

Gyan Mishra <> Thu, 04 February 2021 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8793B3A105C; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:42:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wxRwDzqHDmja; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D67343A105B; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d13so1178790plg.0; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 21:41:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fDXUm9YzlyB/DGbWmvXJeZzEZY8jzifDhFDaZyPbNSY=; b=jVci66GT1644OT4TYAEkNolYvHYNcnimnaomIVIWwaoa/lVETAG6iwnHyBRoZpyYAz 2bTNYxXsVe0R0NpMk8BbM8vmDupJCGlDziV4A+TNiC4gjkhnUbOhlLsBuVYH0C3wLYGb 4Qv64m2zkXnj2IFjJm7mrkcISCD7BAbAtjHRt7MF8naU8zXn8xkNMR5kUf2n7wBLWw49 Ke0WLoYSpMHjX3Dm8Yj559xe6yj+u5IrPP/Lvq/rvtdhHYH6kzNURnbp5aNIjobJbHsc 5XrkGCreyoyS/EY1xDdq+ge82Eubd5xcCJIqAzg3zkJTeTuTumyffrgIG50NPhyAlzly aBgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fDXUm9YzlyB/DGbWmvXJeZzEZY8jzifDhFDaZyPbNSY=; b=RqccHCwjuyokA1BzGYPbB1KtFwNwtaDkGet8rCpjFE0VuULMw9nAKA7kg3yCOP34OS dj5lH/wbWH8ug2P34Tun1gIC9seHz8hioLbiiMCZPz5h0Gb0wcDXn1zsj5EViVnfjWTB MN9KRINCjjPtDzi1kXQaeC4asTVRc0TaZKa7WEwIpUmr0KuDJtCaD6HFCnTSO7T0AehY 240RtJ+B57mznrVz3ihXNmL+0kYOUAtzNhs5HdSqJEf4XxwIE1hWZndTVxELbeGaH39b n4HYp7Y7XAtrEpqVAJHa09b+/xCvwsY8wTkg2eMM3p5Fj7tptCJHgugABluwb7pJME35 Z8xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533O7svD19zOQQA7x/ENdavRrqj7b+BLGnZ6rueWMIlMZNgTCZwh SpW/FOu0zKs/50WIpgVGN49uOYuSZNbZnVw8t0I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtmQ1kIQISena0ONLaKfDRpS+fFjPc1Icrwx6OyZ5PY8ZhE9j5FP+WYAQ2/rp8wTWbga8J8/96Ebq9Xn0xdUw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:be16:b029:df:bf44:9c5f with SMTP id r22-20020a170902be16b02900dfbf449c5fmr6483529pls.22.1612417318373; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 21:41:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 00:41:35 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>
Cc: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <>, TULASI RAM REDDY <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007dcf0205ba7c298f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] Type 1 RD for Pure IPv6 network -- EVPN
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 05:42:01 -0000

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <>

> <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

> Regards,
> Jakob.


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD