Re: [babel] proposed info model change

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Thu, 11 February 2021 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FAB3A198B for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:13:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 6Jx_ie5GSQNR for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA4633A1495 for <babel@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1613077985; bh=IiKo6xhdmNuGtA9asvu+exyMF8ZOmZkCGcOVC7Aakm0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=YPacmp4JM+0LpZvKuyvnzxn39TJv+PsWX+57BnxpUsES4GZKS2dJOfjE9BSBkSYtb gYIO4z5VsTVUPJq4L+aKZZ7OJfZcWKJvMF4xH3ApDHBJIidXytesAIr2yn8U9rHITP z6eUTMo9NFS75GQlQy59EQZEc4lsfltKWoJcYRKwaTZnFbC+9ZDTSX9UEzM398C+zy dfxIXPXO75YGQ92LN+jurNwuN8n7XgDDiuWrRZAWHiw9QdyAzlb5B3EFky4Cj3VeF1 8rXZZK4hi7EUj02NYOv5Pxk9fGXMorLql+Ty+Gm2U4T1sRRubhJ2PoPFQ/icZy2o6P YspfU9z7N7mgg==
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "babel@ietf.org" <babel@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR02MB6924E3E2DD5568E247859E18C38C9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM6PR02MB6924E3E2DD5568E247859E18C38C9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 22:13:04 +0100
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87blcqpau7.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/jYli0S8_ZilRbU7R_5TYW4xSJ_Y>
Subject: Re: [babel] proposed info model change
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 21:13:13 -0000

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> writes:

> Hi Babel WG,
> Would anyone object to the following change for the router-id parameter?
>
> FROM
> The router-id value MUST NOT consist of all zeroes or all ones.
> TO
> The router-id value MUST be unique among all instances of Babel on a device.

What's the rationale?

-Toke