Re: [v6ops] [Idr] BGP Identifier

["Fan, Peng" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christopher,

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.

Peng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:42 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Randy Bush; Farmer; jaeggli; Amante; JAMES; Doering; Raszuk'; fanpeng;
idr
> wg; V6 Ops List
> Subject: Re: Re: [Idr] [v6ops] BGP Identifier
> 
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:30 PM, [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thank you all for your valuable comments and interests in this draft.
> > Any technical concerns about the draft? Is there someone in the mail
> > list from operators that has the same problem as me?
> >
> 
> i think shane's point about 'make a stab at transition technique'
> still needs to be dealt with, yes?
> 
> and really... I don't see a huge reason to do this anyway, yet.
> 
> > Many Thanks,
> > Zhenqiang Li
> >
> > ________________________________
> >