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

Jeffrey Haas <> Wed, 20 May 2015 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D28F1A878B for <>; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.122
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ugNYMwN5q-qS for <>; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F761A8785 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B873A1E301; Wed, 20 May 2015 10:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:42:03 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: Daniel Walton <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: idr wg <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:41:37 -0000

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 09:26:16PM -0400, Daniel Walton wrote:
> Feedback is welcome. There is a "Sectino" typo in the intro, will clean
> that up.

At John's request, here is a short list of things I find problematic about
this draft.  Note that this isn't a statement of my opinion on the value of

1. The draft really should require the ext-opt-param feature.  It's too easy
for a hostname to eat all of the capability space.
2. You can't rely on the hostname in question being useful for DNS purposes.
The IPv6 link local peering is just one example of why.
3. The specification should offer some guidance about what to do when you
have multiple peering sessions with a given router.
4. The specification should offer some guidance about what to do when two
distinct routers use the same name.

Note that 3 and 4 can be distinguished based on BGP Identifier.

As for the UTF-8 issue, it's the right thing to do and as much as it makes
things a real mess, the draft wouldn't progress in IESG without I18N issues
being dealt with.

That said, carefully consider what you expect to do with the names returned
by such a feature.  Just because you can print the things, does that mean
the input portion of your UI can accept it?

-- Jeff (best I can do with anything that isn't Latin-1 is cut and paste)