Re: [Idr] draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability-00

[Daniel Walton <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ​Hi Daniel,​
>
>
>
>> If DNS is down how does that make knowing the hostname of a LL BGP peer
>> useless?
>>
>
> ​It was not clear from the draft that you would use those to resolve names
> also locally (say via temporary caching into hosts file) when learned by
> BGP.
>

Ack, we'll add some text that gives some examples of how/why an
implementation might use the hostname data.


I think while the extension you are proposing is indeed minor I would
> personnaly see this being solved in general v6 case not just for BGP as
> Rajiv mentioned.
>
> Btw are you not running LLDP already on the interfaces ? If so the peer
> name is already there. If not adding OpenLLDP (http://open-lldp.org/)
> should be a mater of minutes :)
>
>
yep, we have LLDP :)  We did consider using LLDP initially but there are
some situations where it doesn't work:

   - LLDP is not enabled.  This would be uncommon within a data center but
   I have worked with customers before who turn off LLDP on all customer
   facing links.
   - If you want to peer to multiple peers on a single L2 segment you are
   only going to see the L2 switch as a LLDP peer and not all of the L3 boxes
   that you are BGP peering with.  For us we only support the "neighbor swpX
   interface" syntax for p2p links but that might change someday and a
   customer could always configure multiple neighbors on that interface by
   specifying "neighbor fe80::...... remote-as X".

Daniel