17 Oct
2023
17 Oct
'23
2:48 p.m.
Hi Guys
As agreed I would share what the LINX’s Juniper SE shared with me with regards to
RFC8950.
Hope this is useful info.
Mo
Hi Mo,
Hope you’re well.
We support RFC5549 (predecessor to RFC8950) on MX since 17.3R1. Other platforms like QFX
had support added later as per below:
https://apps.juniper.net/feature-explorer/feature-info.html?fKey=7931&f…
Below are some PRs that affected RFC8950 compliance:
PR1649332<https://prsearch.juniper.net/problemreport/PR1649332> : RFC 8950 Extended
Nexthop Encoding Capability conformance issue
PR1716946<https://prsearch.juniper.net/problemreport/PR1716946> : BGP connection
doesn't establish when it is configured with rfc8950-compliant under logical-systems
on all Junos and Junos OS Evolved platforms
From the last PR, the fixes are available in:
22.4R2
22.4R3
23.1R2
23.2R1
23.3R1
Reference documentation:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/bgp/topics/topic…
For point to point BGP peering, the dynamic tunnels described in above doc are not
required.
I tested on 23.1R2 and below is my simple topology and sample config:
LAN01(2.2.2.0/24) ------- ge-0/0/2 - R1 (AS65001) - ge-0/0/1---- v6 Peering ---- ge-0/0/1
R2 (AS65002) ge-0/0/2 ------- LAN02 (1.1.1.0/24)
root> show configuration protocols bgp
group TEST {
type external;
local-address 2001:db8::2;
family inet {
unicast {
extended-nexthop;
}
}
export EXPORT-BGP;
peer-as 65001;
neighbor 2001:db8::1;
}
rfc8950-compliant;
root> show configuration interfaces ge-0/0/1
unit 0 {
family inet;
family inet6 {
address 2001:db8::2/64;
}
}
root> show route table inet.0 1.1.1.0/24
inet.0: 6 destinations, 6 routes (6 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
1.1.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 14:18:30, localpref 100
AS path: 65001 I, validation-state: unverified
to 2001:db8::1 via ge-0/0/1.0
Please let me know if you would like to have a quick call to go through.
Kind Regards,
Ashvin
Juniper Business Use Only
17 Oct
17 Oct
4:30 p.m.
Hi Mo, et.al.,
So far my understanding was, that we do not require rfc8950-compliant for
the Internet Peering use-case. That's why I omitted it in
https://github.com/euro-ix/rfc8950-ixp/blob/main/examples/Juniper_JunOS.md
Comparing RFC5549 and RFC8950 suggests that next-hop encoding is only
different in VPN-IPv4 use cases (SAFI 128/129). So maybe we rather need a
warning not to enabe this on older JunOS versions?
Reading
https://community.juniper.net/blogs/krzysztof-szarkowicz/2022/08/11/l3vpn-o…
indicates some relationship to VPN use cases, but is not 100% clear:
Junos by default uses pre-standard (based on
preliminary IETF draft before
RFC 8950 was published) encoding scheme for IPv6 next hops for IPv4 address
families. Therefore, if you omit ‘rfc8950-compliant’ keyword, the setup
will work between Juniper routers, but with high probability will fail
between Juniper and 3rd party routers.
Maybe you can forward this "question" to the Juniper SE?
Really helpful information:
- Supported since 17.3R1 on MX and 20.1R1 on QFX
I'll add this to the example doc.
Thanks,
André
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 15:10, Moyaze Shivji <moyaze(a)linx.net> wrote:
Hi Guys
As agreed I would share what the LINX’s Juniper SE shared with me with
regards to RFC8950.
Hope this is useful info.
Mo
Hi Mo,
Hope you’re well.
We support RFC5549 (predecessor to RFC8950) on MX since 17.3R1. Other
platforms like QFX had support added later as per below:
https://apps.juniper.net/feature-explorer/feature-info.html?fKey=7931&f…
Below are some PRs that affected RFC8950 compliance:
PR1649332 <https://prsearch.juniper.net/problemreport/PR1649332> : RFC
8950 Extended Nexthop Encoding Capability conformance issue
PR1716946 <https://prsearch.juniper.net/problemreport/PR1716946> : BGP
connection doesn't establish when it is configured with rfc8950-compliant
under logical-systems on all Junos and Junos OS Evolved platforms
From the last PR, the fixes are available in:
22.4R2
22.4R3
23.1R2
23.2R1
23.3R1
Reference documentation:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/bgp/topics/topic…
For point to point BGP peering, the dynamic tunnels described in above doc
are not required.
I tested on 23.1R2 and below is my simple topology and sample config:
LAN01(2.2.2.0/24) ------- ge-0/0/2 - R1 (AS65001) - ge-0/0/1---- v6
Peering ---- ge-0/0/1 R2 (AS65002) ge-0/0/2 ------- LAN02 (1.1.1.0/24)
root> show configuration protocols bgp
group TEST {
type external;
local-address 2001:db8::2;
family inet {
unicast {
extended-nexthop;
}
}
export EXPORT-BGP;
peer-as 65001;
neighbor 2001:db8::1;
}
rfc8950-compliant;
root> show configuration interfaces ge-0/0/1
unit 0 {
family inet;
family inet6 {
address 2001:db8::2/64;
}
}
root> show route table inet.0 1.1.1.0/24
inet.0: 6 destinations, 6 routes (6 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
1.1.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 14:18:30, localpref 100
AS path: 65001 I, validation-state: unverified
--
André Grüneberg, Managing Director
andre.grueneberg(a)bcix.de
+49 30 2332195 42
BCIX Management GmbH
Albrechtstr. 110
12103 Berlin
Germany
Geschäftsführer/Managing Directors: Jens Lietzmann, André Grüneberg
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 143581 B
to 2001:db8::1 via ge-0/0/1.0
Please let me know if you would like to have a quick call to go through.
Kind Regards,
Ashvin
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
Rfc8950 mailing list -- rfc8950(a)lists.euro-ix.net
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc8950-leave(a)lists.euro-ix.net
362
days inactive
362
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
André Grüneberg -
Moyaze Shivji