IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com> Sat, 16 May 2015 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E9E1A8851; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 1djHCanKOKeS; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com (maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:4830:c400:203::3131]) (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 BB6511A884F; Sat, 16 May 2015 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor31.somerville.occnc.com (harbor31.somerville.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:4830:c400:203::3231]) (authenticated bits=128) by maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t4GNohsL040700; Sat, 16 May 2015 19:50:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@ipv6.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201505162350.t4GNohsL040700@maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com>
To: Dinesh Dutt <ddutt@cumulusnetworks.com>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 16 May 2015 16:07:21 -0700." <CABg5FUVTSJNF2NOeN1m9ESUzQo3HVNu-fut5PTuHZ+LTigD4eQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <40698.1431820243.1@harbor31.somerville.occnc.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 19:50:43 -0400
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ad2nRVxxeYFwAirN6vS8daaPtmY>
Cc: John Heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-bounces@ietf.org" <idr-bounces@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@ipv6.occnc.com
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 23:52:05 -0000

In message <CABg5FUVTSJNF2NOeN1m9ESUzQo3HVNu-fut5PTuHZ+LTigD4eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Dinesh Dutt writes:
 
> Hi John,
>  
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 9:37 AM, John Heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:
>  
> > Am 16.05.2015 um 11:59 schrieb Thomas Mangin <
> > thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>:
> > >
> > > I would rather see this totally harmless draft (as vendors can decide to
> > ignore it without consequences) progress than seeing Cumulus assigning a
> > capability number for it and later find that we have like multisession two
> > different code for the same feature :p
> >
> > Or just keep track of your peering info in a database ... With contact
> > info, business relationship, etc.  this is not a bgp problem, IMO.  Its a
> > CRM and NMS problem.
> >
>  
> In the data center, you've met the other side, and its you. I don't think I
> said that carrying the hostname was a BGP problem. We see it as a way to
> simplify operations in the DC, by supplementing numbers with names,
>  
> Dinesh


Pardon my ignorance of BGP, but wouldn't a check of the router-id
resolve that issue.  You know that non-routable 4 bit thing that is
unique and isn't an address (but somehow manages to fall within an
assigned IPv4 prefix) that has been in BGP for a while.

Look up the router-id maybe?  And yes peering info in a database has
been successfully tried before.  If you need peering info, why is FQDN
any easier to use to look it up than router-id?

Isn't there something in DNS to map an address to FQDN?  Maybe you
could use that.  I think some people have successfully used that too.

Never ran a DC but I always thought that if you brought up a peering
and "it was you" your network was in rather bad shape to start with.

:-)

Curtis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email