Re: New Version Notification for draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len-17.txt

On Mon., 13 May 2019, 19:58 , <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:

> > My thought on this this the following: OSPF should update to allow
> > Router ID to be an IPv6 link-local address, not just an IPv4 address.
>
> The OSPF router ID is a 32 bit number, *not* an IPv4 address. I see
> no good reason to change this, we simply need to have people stop
> *thinking* of it as an IPv4 address.
>

I once caused a little short term confusion by purposely changing a router
we were decommissioning's OSPD ID to 255.255.255.255 for a while before we
finally removed it from the network.

I did it on purpose and knew I could get away with it because the
convention was that OSPF IDs matched the router's unicast management IPv4
address, but in OSPF, the ID is *not* an IPv4 address.

255.255.255.255 was guaranteed to be both unique in our network and to also
work fine in OSPF. And it did.

 (Although even I got a little initially confused when I'd see it in OSPF
status commands. Perhaps next time around I'd use "Class D or E addresses"
- 255.255.255.255 is a really magic 32 bit number.)

> > MPLS and LDP should update to allow IPv6 addresses everywhere and not
> > rely on any form of IPv4.
>
> LDPv6 already exists:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7552
>
> Supported in for instance JunOS:
>
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ldp-native-ipv6-support-overview.html
>
> Steinar Haug, AS2116
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>