Re: [v6ops] [Idr] BGP Identifier

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DFC1A03E7; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:08:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham
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 Jwl4FTH53gkH; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:08:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C341A0358; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:08:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1WFdqv-0003FJ-6J; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:08:22 +0000
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:08:17 +0800
Message-ID: <m261odt0ku.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Peng Fan <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <00d501cf2c6a$36c995d0$a45cc170$@chinamobile.com>
References: <12AA6714-4BBE-4ACE-8191-AA107D04FBF4@cisco.com> <m2iosdta7m.wl%randy@psg.com> <2014021811305909988540@chinamobile.com> <CAL9jLaa6fXL+FFNFgdK257dbHGXqm4YBRfMEocoQPEAczPmH-Q@mail.gmail.com> <00d501cf2c6a$36c995d0$a45cc170$@chinamobile.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3Kaqz5PEvfxfsM7oyzsRBgkrwFk
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Idr] BGP Identifier
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:08:33 -0000

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
JAMES <ju1738@att.com>
Doering <gert@space.net>
	
> Normally it is easier to handle routers within the AS as we have full
> control over it. I think the key point is the ASBR, as we have no
> control of its eBGP peers. A simple approach is to enable both this
> extension and RFC6286, and assign a 32-bit ID in addition to the
> 128-bit one for backup purpose before we are aware of the capability
> of its peers. The ASBR prefers the 128-bit ID. Since the ID field of
> OPEN message sent by the ASBR is zero, which will result in a "bad bgp
> identifier" error message sent by the peer if it does not support the
> new 128-bit ID capability, the ASBR will know the type of its
> peer. The ASBR can initiate a second connection in the old way, and
> the connection falls back using 32-bit ID.

what we have here is a bunch of network operators trying to help you
design and configure your network.  it may have gone past the amusing
and educational for the non-op ietf folk on these lists.  you may get
wider and deeper free consulting, with 42 conflicting opinions, by
moving this to nanog, apops, ... list(s).

randy