IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier

Enke Chen <enke@redback.com> Fri, 21 December 2001 00:56 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14045 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:56:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 47B2E9126D; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:56:16 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 137139126F; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:56:16 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198FB9126D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:56:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E22BB5DD9C; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:56:09 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2815DD95 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:56:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from popserv3.redback.com (popserv3.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488FF262805; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.36.220]) by popserv3.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272E57E6C2; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:55:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Cc: yakov@juniper.net, jenny@redback.com, idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier
In-Reply-To: Message from Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> of "Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:28:37 EST." <5.0.0.25.0.20011220190213.03c17cd8@mail.nexthop.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:55:53 -0800
From: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>
Message-Id: <20011221005554.272E57E6C2@popserv3.redback.com>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Sue,

> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:28:37 -0500
> To: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>
> From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
> Subject: Re: AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier
> Cc: yakov@juniper.net, skh@nexthop.com, enke@redback.com,
> 	jenny@redback.com, idr@merit.edu
> In-Reply-To: <20011220202519.A18FC979C1@popserv2.redback.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> 
> Enke:
> 
> A blow by blow comparison of the drafts.  As your
> draft is stated below, I do not see the value of widening
> the BGP Identifier value.   Perhaps you can enlightening
> me as to the purpose of this proposed BGP change versus
> the BCP proposal from the IP v6 area.

Please note that this draft does *not* widen the BGP Identifier field.
That is the whole point of the draft.

> 
> Your draft would make the IP v6 solution un-workable for IP v6 networks,
> and proposes no operational reason to support your change.

Actually the draft makes the BGP Identifier to be just 4-byte, and
independent of either IPv4 or IPv6.

Could you be more specific why the solution is un-workable for IPv6
network?   

-- Enke

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email