-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 368
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
More uniform BGP router ID selection for IPv4 and IPv6 #6550
Comments
Originally, the BGP Identifier needed to be a unique identifier for each BGP router. Typically, it was derived from the IP address of the router i.e Node IP and the identifier had to be unique across the entire network, However now it is defined as a 4-octet (32-bit), unsigned, non-zero integer. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Fixes antrea-io#6550 Signed-off-by: Kumar Atish <[email protected]>
Fixes antrea-io#6550 Signed-off-by: Kumar Atish <[email protected]>
Fixes antrea-io#6550 Signed-off-by: Kumar Atish <[email protected]>
Fixes antrea-io#6550 Signed-off-by: Kumar Atish <[email protected]>
Fixes antrea-io#6550 Signed-off-by: Kumar Atish <[email protected]>
Currently, the Node IP will be used as the BGP router ID unconditionally when the Node has an IPv4 address (IPv4-only or dual-stack clusters). For IPv6-only clusters, we will honor the
node.antrea.io/bgp-router-id
Node annotation (if provided by the user), or fallback to a "randomly-generated" value (in reality, hash-based).This implementation doesn't make much sense to me. I see no reason why the annotation should not be honored in the IPv4 case. If anything, that just creates confusion. RFC 6286 relaxes the definition of the BGP router ID, and I don't think we need to "force" the ID to be the Node IP in the IPv4 case.
Originally posted by @antoninbas in #6524 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: