Re: [v6ops] [Idr] BGP Identifier

Randy Bush <> Tue, 18 February 2014 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DFC1A03E7; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:08:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jwl4FTH53gkH; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:08:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C341A0358; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:08:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1WFdqv-0003FJ-6J; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:08:22 +0000
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:08:17 +0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Peng Fan <>
In-Reply-To: <00d501cf2c6a$36c995d0$a45cc170$>
References: <> <> <> <> <00d501cf2c6a$36c995d0$a45cc170$>
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
Cc: idr wg <>, V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Idr] BGP Identifier
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:08:33 -0000

Christopher Morrow <>
Farmer <>
jaeggli <>
Amante <>
Doering <>
> 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).