[v6ops] BGP Identifier

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 13 February 2014 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 18D751A0346 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:22:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 YxXmPWZ6KDXY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:22:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA5D1A0323 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:22:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2046; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392312172; x=1393521772; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=ftBf0Kd2BtYP4xskUKSaycTfmwGZ49hhJ0Zo02uj1TU=; b=EuGrb8MpeQPtdpXmAIPPKwfO9ClGBvjfGK+/Y7M/Ud9SrU6QcqshrNA0 m63jnWZcRa8/FI77mqbBvObwUxFAUtQPCxqz6p8jKukHzrzjtwbKyICIg YOO3jAQEUxXFBB4iifbP9nH65bJYZCDH5PaV9qJRuns8ted9tbf1NsSJb U=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj0FALr+/FKtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgwY4V79MgRgWdIIseRIBgQAnBA4TDYdqDcd6F455gyuBFASQQIEyhjqBMpBxgy2CKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,839,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="303963065"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2014 17:22:51 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1DHMpsp014212 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:22:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.227]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:22:51 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: BGP Identifier
Thread-Index: AQHPKOA4MyipLngEZ0OWIYFcgQevoA==
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:22:50 +0000
Message-ID: <12AA6714-4BBE-4ACE-8191-AA107D04FBF4@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.119]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3B84C374-1247-4779-85FE-CFD299D52498"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id@tools.ietf.org" <draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] 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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:22:58 -0000

The chairs have received a request from the authors of

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id
  "IPv6 BGP Identifier Capability for BGP-4", Peng Fan, Zhenqiang Li,
  2014-02-12

who would like to discuss it with other operators in the coming meeting. It is, of course, an idr draft and will be pursued there. But idr thinks it has a solution for this problem in 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6286
6286 Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4. E. Chen,
     J. Yuan. June 2011. (Format: TXT=7497 bytes) (Updates RFC4271)
     (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

which relaxes the definition of the BGP Identifier to be a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer and relaxes the "uniqueness" requirement so that only Autonomous-System-wide (AS-wide) uniqueness of the BGP Identifiers is required. In other words, in an IPv6-only AS, the operator may assign a 32 bit value as his BGP Identifier. China Mobile finds this cumbersome, requiring what amounts to planning and manual intervention in something that is automatic in IPv4 networks, and would like to be able to use an IPv6 address as a BGP identifier directly.

The question, post-discussion, is whether v6ops should advise idr that the draft would be of operational interest and value.

Do you want John and I to include it in the agenda?