IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] Router-ID and information model

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Thu, 28 March 2019 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
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 5037412008A for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.com
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 Ot1za-FwL3TK for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099CE120013 for <babel@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id x7so17659089ioh.4 for <babel@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vvK80wwhZR+k8wFGRmWqkt60AVg94h1dd8kZbiscLRI=; b=qGbQeiizrSCMd1/5L49jA1vIs7Zyo3ix9dodXzLwbC5uBzspWsSv2gf35FlxHI3ECs rlJtJmDmk5FSurLruClXrcdFhuqguJ1mcYyvBO7BpCgOrUYKrqYU3TtBtv/w3PFRiCvN 6QmR/+c0zleNLBAXpsNOZytMsF1Ury1/iIUd9tSoP1zefoh+uaFtFP1cmcNGtVnbT9WV stwZhJRC5Wy3/jWuneXp4pV/2Y44twVpSEOkzG9oKykBLfB5b2XfjhPEaSi43lqKCWMA tftOYTa3Xfy6jqtWMcGLZ7tvXnIEf5BrCARpwPKK6BOAoEPRUgvVxKiAzY3WGuhz8TlE knWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vvK80wwhZR+k8wFGRmWqkt60AVg94h1dd8kZbiscLRI=; b=H57ToNbMRIezaUiWMtXq8is9gCLvTAff1ySqH1aKDY5NrVxJ3UYvB39UUuIcwNw2xz sl/lqoMGlns+6fpJtYN7z1AVUuK3phB57b7wQeCuujbgb7SIF6Ga3ccELhMrfL10Q0yu Z7S3DUKTV053O3Tv/YZIAXl2OFKJPjVjc7CQ7P2FQYxNH5yZJAgExn3heNlClKkftY1+ VBU/x2A2K/XYRNuXMOtbWTRm3h6EECnvrChcZfD+m04j2OJfVgTI9z7ZQjDNSIaeUPb+ Dr1e9DVGnEJlLANWEFFUcKz7RgOSDI7ZA+myexJRo1QceGYB15/RKdBcLa1TuGjbn5vB HbIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWUuY4bSwhXCRgnmt+6qZrSJius2uZb4q8/MArAcV8EtI88uT+9 IYJ7zUEZ4g9h9jalzfM5KNg+0VXiPnh/mw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx0LiIjvhDsOWXpXe8JM1IQMI49CP8JPYmIAefarze4Z0PfC4tFaLK43SP3S5O1WHgFAW8uMA==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8358:: with SMTP id q24mr29032576ior.273.1553788453035; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.90.211.238] ([172.56.12.72]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g10sm4521874itc.36.2019.03.28.08.54.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57)
In-Reply-To: <87bm1v6mta.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:54:09 +0100
Cc: babel@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <399360CE-F442-4D12-AAAE-4855AC685CED@gmail.com>
References: <87bm1v6mta.wl-jch@irif.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/k1AkgBCUmhtxz-TdaFsJ0E5Z0IY>
Subject: Re: [babel] Router-ID and information model
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, 28 Mar 2019 15:54:16 -0000

Hi Juliusz,


> On Mar 28, 2019, at 4:28 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
> 
> The router-id situation is ambiguous.
> 
> 1. rfc6126bis requires that each router have a router-id (Section 3).
> 
> 2. However, this router-id is only used when originating routes, so
>   a router that is not originating any could in principle not have one
>   (if there's nobody to see there's no router id, does it matter that
>   there's no router id?).
> 
> 3. However, none of the implementations skip allocating a router-id, so in
>   practice there's always a router-id.
> 
> Hence, I think it's reasonable for the information model to assume each
> router has a router-id.

Good to know. 

From a IM and DM perspective we will have some language that reflects this assumption. 

Thanks. 

> 
> -- Juliusz

Mahesh Jethanandani 
mjethanandani@gmail.com

> 
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email