Subject: [Idr] WG Last Call for AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:37:23 +0200

Folks,

This is to start the IDR WG Last Call on advancing draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-11.txt as a Proposed Standard RFC. The deadline for comments is February 19, 2010.

A URL for the draft is http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-11.txt

--John

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 06:29:45 -0700

> A URL for the draft is http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-11.txt

I don't see any mention of the impact on RFC 5004 that
this mechanism might introduce (i.e., the algorithm 
assumes different BGP identifiers from external peers, and
currently provides no provision for an additional key of 
external AS number).

-danny

---

From: Enke Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:05:38 -0800

Hi, Danny:

There is no impact on RFC 5004 as RFC 5004 talks about the steps *prior 
to*  the BGP identifier comparison in the route selection:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFC 5004:

3.  The Algorithm

   Consider the case in which the existing best path A is from an
   external peer, and another external path B is then selected as the
   new best path by the route selection algorithm described in [BGP].
   When comparing all the paths in route selection, if neither Path A
   nor Path B is eliminated by the route selection algorithm prior to
   Step f) -- BGP identifier comparison (Section 9.1.2.2, [BGP]) -- we
   propose that the existing best path (Path A) be kept as the best path
   (thus avoiding switching the best path to Path B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, with respect to the bestpath calculation, RFC 4271 covers the case 
where the BGP identifiers are identical:

9.1.2.2.  Breaking Ties (Phase 2)

            ....

      f) Remove from consideration all routes other than the route that
         was advertised by the BGP speaker with the lowest BGP
         Identifier value.

      g) Prefer the route received from the lowest peer address.

------------------------

Regards,   -- Enke

Danny McPherson wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:12:04 -0700

On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Enke Chen wrote:

> 
> There is no impact on RFC 5004 as RFC 5004 talks about the steps *prior to*  the BGP identifier comparison in the route selection:

Ahh, yes, you're right.  OK, thanks Enke!

-danny

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:45:02 +0200

The WGLC has completed.  There were no unanswered issues raised, so we'll be forwarding the draft to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Thanks,

--John