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

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Walton
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Daniel Walton
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > It makes troubleshooting much easier.
>>
>> so does not using private addressing?
>
>
> IPv6 link-local addressing is the main motivator, not private addressing.

equivalent to private addressing, in my opinion.

>>
>> why solve this in the bgp space? why not solve this in any of the
>> other domains much better built for this?
>
>
> Solving it in BGP is very simple, it works if routing is down (no DNS), it
> works for ipv4/ipv6 and it is a very small change.

'is very simple' and 'very small change'... famous last words.

I suppose I hear this:
   "Automation in a network (DC or wide area) is moving forward. We
want to also be able to drop hints that 'peer ip blah is host X' or
the like."

Why not, since  you are automating things, all fancy and stuff, also
include the hostname in the config? (as mr. heasley points out).
Surely in your automated processes you'll know whom you are talking to
and can lay out the right config data as you go, eh?

The problem expands beyond the 'DC' when you add it as a generic
capability to BGP... we all have to pay for the 'solution' in other
gear/code/problems/poor-choices.

Also, this struck me as funny:
  " it works if routing is down (no DNS), "

err... 'if all routing is down', because if your peer is down it's not
working, right? This actually argues for Mr Heasley's position... put
the name in the config (gathered from your automation and network
discovery work) so when 'why is peer ff02:asd:as:as:asas:01 down?' you
can see instead: "Peer abc123 is down'.

-chris