OpenBGP bgpctl(8) asdot / 4byte-asn

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OpenBGP bgpctl(8) asdot / 4byte-asn

Eduardo Meyer
Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
asdot format? I am trying to convert my OpenBGP conf  to RPSL but the
later is old enough that wont accept as-dot format, therefore I need
it in 4-byte ASN notation.

Thanks.

--
===========
Eduardo Meyer
pessoal: [hidden email]
profissional: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBGP bgpctl(8) asdot / 4byte-asn

Stuart Henderson
On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
> asdot format?

Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always
outputs as-dot.

I think we should probably change this, rfc5396 came out a couple
of years ago and pretty much everyone is using as-plain now. (Even
though 3.10 looks far nicer than 196618 ;)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBGP bgpctl(8) asdot / 4byte-asn

Eduardo Meyer
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
>> asdot format?
>
> Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always
> outputs as-dot.
>
> I think we should probably change this, rfc5396 came out a couple
> of years ago and pretty much everyone is using as-plain now. (Even
> though 3.10 looks far nicer than 196618 ;)

Yeah, I agree, but the world seems to prefer plain 4byte (maybe they can read).

BTW I have read in many Cisco[1] documents that asdot is made up of

(PART1 * 65535) + PART2

However OpenBGP does the math as ((PART1 * 65535) + PART2)  + PART1.

How can Cisco be wrong again? lol

[1]http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/white_paper_c11_516829.html

Thanks, Ill do some shell scripting to convert.





--
===========
Eduardo Meyer
pessoal: [hidden email]
profissional: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBGP bgpctl(8) asdot / 4byte-asn

Stuart Henderson
On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
>>> asdot format?
>>
>> Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always
>> outputs as-dot.

Re-reading this sentence I see it's badly written; I meant it as
"the only place OpenBGP accepts as-plain is for input" but I'll
rephrase to make it totally clear:

Currently OpenBGP accepts either format for input, but it always
outputs as-dot.

>> I think we should probably change this, rfc5396 came out a couple
>> of years ago and pretty much everyone is using as-plain now. (Even
>> though 3.10 looks far nicer than 196618 ;)
>
> Yeah, I agree, but the world seems to prefer plain 4byte (maybe they can read).

I think it's largely because a lot of people are using regular
expressions over AS paths to set routing policy and the .'s are
going to mess things up there.

> BTW I have read in many Cisco[1] documents that asdot is made up of
> [1]http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/white_paper_c11_516829.html
>
> (PART1 * 65535) + PART2

["1" * 65535] + "10" = 65546

err...wow.

> However OpenBGP does the math as ((PART1 * 65535) + PART2)  + PART1.

Or, put another way, part1*65536 + part2 (though it's actually written
as the more efficient `$$ = uval | (uvalh << 16)' in the parser).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBGP bgpctl(8) asdot / 4byte-asn

Claudio Jeker
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 08:54:25PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:

> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
> >>> asdot format?
> >>
> >> Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always
> >> outputs as-dot.
>
> Re-reading this sentence I see it's badly written; I meant it as
> "the only place OpenBGP accepts as-plain is for input" but I'll
> rephrase to make it totally clear:
>
> Currently OpenBGP accepts either format for input, but it always
> outputs as-dot.
>
> >> I think we should probably change this, rfc5396 came out a couple
> >> of years ago and pretty much everyone is using as-plain now. (Even
> >> though 3.10 looks far nicer than 196618 ;)

I still prefer 3.10. At least it tells me quickly from which RIR the AS is
from. And it looks nicer.

> >
> > Yeah, I agree, but the world seems to prefer plain 4byte (maybe they can read).
>
> I think it's largely because a lot of people are using regular
> expressions over AS paths to set routing policy and the .'s are
> going to mess things up there.

Yes, network admins seem to be unable to write correct regular
expressions.
No T-Shirt from them. Or maybe we should make on: "move out of the way, I
don't know regular expressions"
 

> > BTW I have read in many Cisco[1] documents that asdot is made up of
> > [1]http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/white_paper_c11_516829.html
> >
> > (PART1 * 65535) + PART2
>
> ["1" * 65535] + "10" = 65546
>
> err...wow.
>
> > However OpenBGP does the math as ((PART1 * 65535) + PART2)  + PART1.
>
> Or, put another way, part1*65536 + part2 (though it's actually written
> as the more efficient `$$ = uval | (uvalh << 16)' in the parser).

Yep. All the multiplication is way to complex.

--
:wq Claudio