[Isis-wg] 答复: [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Fri, 09 May 2014 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184B51A023F; Fri, 9 May 2014 02:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vUpG0SWoxkX4; Fri, 9 May 2014 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D2B1A0268; Fri, 9 May 2014 02:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BGO28657; Fri, 09 May 2014 09:57:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 9 May 2014 10:55:24 +0100
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 9 May 2014 10:57:06 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.115]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 9 May 2014 17:57:00 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>, Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
Thread-Index: AQHPa2TU0KeJfDl/fkGY3udMB/Ik+Zs3+2mQ//9/owCAAIayEA==
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 09:56:59 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08270D72@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <CF8CEDD4.2D52B%acee.lindem@ericsson.com> <5367B449.7090304@bogus.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0826FEA2@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <EEB7CA30-C044-4A35-AF80-F71CEDF521C9@lindem.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0827025D@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <536B9971.4080700@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08270C0C@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <536C9892.50107@linfre.de> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08270D2D@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <536CA4AA.20107@linfre.de>
In-Reply-To: <536CA4AA.20107@linfre.de>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/j4lfh3UC2ZSxz_-i8NEadh0OtIo
Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "fanpeng@chinamobile.com" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>, "lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com" <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
Subject: [Isis-wg] 答复: [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 09:57:30 -0000

Hi Karsten,

The term "routable IP address " looks good to me. 

Best regards,
Xiaohu 

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Karsten Thomann [mailto:karsten_thomann@linfre.de]
> 发送时间: 2014年5月9日 17:50
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Anton Smirnov
> 抄送: isis-wg@ietf.org; George, Wes; fanpeng@chinamobile.com; joel jaeggli;
> OSPF List; sunset4@ietf.org; lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> 
> Hi Xuxiaohu,
> 
> I think that the question of the purpose of the drafts is clear now and I hope
> George can confirm it.
> The problem I would like to get addressed is the term Router ID in the drafts, as
> the Router ID is not necessarily a routable address, if possible with an update to
> the rfc also for the IPv4 "Router ID" in the TLV...
> 
> Or do you (or someone else) have any objections or problems with a change of
> the term to clarify that it is not the router ID?
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Am 09.05.2014 11:31, schrieb Xuxiaohu:
> > Hi Karsten,
> >
> > Your understanding is completely correct.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Xiaohu
> >
> >> -----邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Karsten Thomann
> >> 发送时间: 2014年5月9日 16:58
> >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Anton Smirnov
> >> 抄送: isis-wg@ietf.org; George, Wes; fanpeng@chinamobile.com; joel
> >> jaeggli; OSPF List; sunset4@ietf.org; lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> >> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>
> >> Hi Xiaohu,
> >>
> >> I think I've understand your problem now, but please don't call it a
> >> Router ID, the router ID must not be an IP address.
> >> To avoid any confusion about it please call it a router ip or router
> >> address within the TLV.
> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand your drafts right
> >> you're not requesting a real IPv6 Router ID instead of the
> >> (arbitrary) 32bit ID, but a simple TLV to carry the routable IPv6
> >> address of the router which advertises the capability.
> >>
> >> If I understand it right, we should maybe fix the text of the other
> >> rfc to refect that it is an routable IP address, instead of a
> >> (possible) arbitrary but unique Router ID.
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >> Karsten
> >>
> >> Am 09.05.2014 02:53, schrieb Xuxiaohu:
> >>> Hi Anton,
> >>>
> >>> When ISIS capability TLVs are flooded across areas, routers in one
> >>> area may
> >> need to establish correlations between IP addresses and capabilities
> >> of routers in another area. For example, assume IS-IS router A in one
> >> area has established a L3VPN session with IS-IS router B in another
> >> area. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to router B via a
> >> MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router B (identified
> >> by an IP address) has the ELC
> >> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before
> >> inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet. In such case, it needs to
> >> contain at least one routable IP address in the capability TLV which
> >> has been flooded across area boundaries. In the IPv4 network, the
> >> 4-octect router ID field could contain such routable IPv4 address.
> >> However, in the IPv6 network, there is no counterpart field to contain a
> routable IPv6 address.
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Xiaohu
> >>>
> >>>> -----邮件原件-----
> >>>> 发件人: Anton Smirnov [mailto:asmirnov@cisco.com]
> >>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月8日 22:49
> >>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> >>>> 抄送: isis-wg@ietf.org; George, Wes; fanpeng@chinamobile.com; joel
> >>>> jaeggli; OSPF List; sunset4@ietf.org; lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> >>>> 主题: Re: [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>>>
> >>>>       Hello Xiaohu,
> >>>>       this whole thread started from George Wes stating that even
> >>>> in pure
> >>>> IPv4 world Router ID in many protocols is NOT an IPv4 address. For
> >>>> convenience it frequently is but on the binary scale "ID guaranteed
> >>>> to be routable IPv4 address"/"ID is just a number" - the Router ID
> >>>> is NOT an
> >> IPv4 address.
> >>>>       So, before you convince people that IPv6 Rtr ID is needed you
> >>>> must start from discussing when and why Router ID is being used as
> >>>> IPv4 address in pure
> >>>> IPv4 world. I believe this in other words is what Acee asking you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anton
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 05/07/2014 03:10 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Acee,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The motivation for these two drafts
> >>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id-00 and
> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id-00) is very
> >>>> simple: the
> >>>> IPv6 ISIS|OSPF capability TLV/RI-LSA which are used for advertising
> >>>> router capabilities can be flooded across areas, however, only a
> >>>> 4-octect router ID is carried in them. As a result, it’s hard for
> >>>> routers in one area to establish correlations between IPv6
> >>>> addresses and
> >> capabilities of routers in another area.
> >>>> For example, assume IS-IS router A in one area has established a
> >>>> L3VPN session with IS-IS router B in another area over their own
> >>>> IPv6 addresses. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to router
> >>>> B via a MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router B has
> >>>> the ELC
> >>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before
> >>>> inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet . However, the Capability
> >>>> TLV originated by router B doesn’t carried an IPv6 address of its
> >>>> own. As a result,
> >> it !
> >>>>    s hard fo
> >>>> r router A to know the ELC of router B.
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Xiaohu
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----邮件原件-----
> >>>>>> 发件人: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@lindem.com]
> >>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月6日 21:14
> >>>>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> >>>>>> 抄送: joel jaeggli; Acee Lindem; George, Wes; sunset4@ietf.org;
> >>>>>> OSPF List; isis-wg@ietf.org; fanpeng@chinamobile.com;
> >>>>>> lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> >>>>>> 主题: Re: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 5, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----邮件原件-----
> >>>>>>>> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 joel jaeggli
> >>>>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月5日 23:55
> >>>>>>>> 收件人: Acee Lindem; Xuxiaohu; George, Wes
> >>>>>>>> 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; fanpeng@chinamobile.com; isis-wg@ietf.org;
> >>>>>>>> sunset4@ietf.org; lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> >>>>>>>> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5/5/14, 9:28 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Xiaohu – what are precisely the situations that you think you
> >>>>>>>>> need this
> >>>>>>>>> IPv6 address?
> >>>>>>>>> Acee
> >>>>>>>> if you're using router-id's as equivalency as an ipv4 unicast addresses.
> >>>>>>>> you're doing so at your peril because there is zero assurance
> >>>>>>>> that those actually map. the first time you have a router id of
> >>>>>>>> 11100000000000000000000000000101 well bummer.
> >>>>>>> The IPv6 router ID sub-TLV of the ISIS router capability TLV
> >>>>>>> must carry a
> >>>>>> "routable" IPv6 address. If the name of the sub-TLV seems
> >>>>>> confusing, it can be changed to IPv6 address sub-TLV.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Independent of what you call it, you didn’t answer my question.
> >>>>>> Other than TE, what the use cases where it is needed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Acee
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>> Xiaohu
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't find the embedding of semantic meaning in router-ids to
> >>>>>>>> be more compelling then it was in ip addresses.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com
> >>>>>> <mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:29 AM
> >>>>>>>>> To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:wesley.george@twcable.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: OSPF - OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "isis-wg@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>" <isis-wg@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>, "fanpeng@chinamobile.com
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com>" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com>>, "sunset4@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>" <sunset4@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>>, "lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>"
> >>>>>>>>> <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> >>>> <mailto:lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Hi Wes,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Thanks for pointing out these two drafts.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       The motivation for these two drafts
> >>>>>>>>>       (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id-00
> and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id-00) is
> >> very
> >>>>>>>>>       simple: the IPv6 ISIS|OSPF capability TLV/RI-LSA which
> >>>>>>>>> are used
> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>       advertising router capabilities can be flooded across areas,
> >>>>>>>>>       however, only a 4-octect router ID is carried in them. As a
> result,
> >>>>>>>>>       it’s hard for routers in one area to establish
> >>>>>>>>> correlations
> >> between
> >>>>>>>>>       IPv6 addresses and capabilities of routers in another area.
> For
> >>>>>>>>>       example, assume IS-IS router A in one area has
> >>>>>>>>> established a
> >> L3VPN
> >>>>>>>>>       session with IS-IS router B in another area over their own
> IPv6
> >>>>>>>>>       addresses. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to
> >>>>>>>>> router B
> >>>> via
> >>>>>>>>>       a MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router
> >>>>>>>>> B has
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>       ELC
> >>>>>>>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00)%20before>
> >>>>>>>>>       inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet . However, the
> >> Capability
> >>>>>>>>>       TLV originated by router B doesn’t carried an IPv6 address
> of its
> >>>>>>>>>       own. As a result, it’s hard for router A to know the ELC
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >> router B.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Xiaohu
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *发件人:*George, Wes
> [mailto:wesley.george@twcable.com]
> >>>>>>>>>       *发送时间:*2014年5月2日1:51
> >>>>>>>>>       *收件人:*Xuxiaohu
> >>>>>>>>>       *抄送:*sunset4@ietf.org <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>;
> >>>>>>>>>       fanpeng@chinamobile.com
> >> <mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com>;
> >>>>>>>>>       lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> >>>> <mailto:lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
> >>>>>>>>>       *主题:*Re: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       I got a bounce-back on all 3 draft aliases, trying again with
> the
> >>>>>>>>>       authors’s email addresses directly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *From: *<George>, "George, Wes"
> >> <wesley.george@twcable.com
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:wesley.george@twcable.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *Date: *Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM
> >>>>>>>>>       *To: *"draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org>"
> >>>>>>>>>       <draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org>>,
> >>>>>>>>>       "draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org>"
> >>>>>>>>>       <draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id@tools.ietf.org>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *Cc: *"draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id@tools.ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id@tools.ietf.org>"
> >>>>>>>>>       <draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id@tools.ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id@tools.ietf.org>>,
> >>>>>>>>>       "sunset4@ietf.org <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>"
> >> <sunset4@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *Subject: *[sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       I see that you have submitted two drafts for IPv6 router
> >>>>>>>>> IDs in
> >> ISIS
> >>>>>>>>>       and OSPF, noting that the existing router ID is only 4 octets.
> This
> >>>>>>>>>       has also come up in IDR for BGP. The authors of that draft
> are
> >>>>>>>>>       copied. I’ll give you a similar set of feedback to what
> >>>>>>>>> I gave them -
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       It is important to distinguish between places where a unique
> >>>>>>>>>       identifier is needed, and by *convention* an IPv4
> >>>>>>>>> address
> >> assigned
> >>>>>>>>>       to the device has been used to provide that unique ID, vs.
> places
> >>>>>>>>>       where the actual IP address has some sort of importance to
> the
> >>>>>>>>>       protocol (I.e. That information must be available to
> >>>>>>>>> take action
> >> on).
> >>>>>>>>>       In other words, is the protocol requirement that the ID
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >> unique
> >>>>>>>>>       across some domain, but that the actual value does not
> >>>>>>>>> matter,
> >> or is
> >>>>>>>>>       the protocol requirement that the value must correspond
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>       on the router? In many of the former cases, the fact
> >>>>>>>>> that the
> >> value
> >>>>>>>>>       isn’t relevant has been used to make recommendations
> >>>>>>>>> that are
> >>>> easier
> >>>>>>>>>       for humans to deal with (I.e. Tying the router ID to an
> >>>>>>>>> IP
> >> address)
> >>>>>>>>>       but that value as a human-readable set of info does not
> >> necessarily
> >>>>>>>>>       justify  changes to the protocol to support that
> >>>>>>>>> convention as
> >> we
> >>>>>>>>>       move to IPv6.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       I would argue that the router ID used in routing protocols
> must
> >>>>>>>>>       merely be unique, but it doesn’t have to be an IP address at
> all.
> >>>>>>>>>       Thus it is not strictly necessary to create a new field to carry
> >>>>>>>>>       IPv6 addresses when operating without IPv4 addresses on
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>> network.
> >>>>>>>>>       If you believe otherwise, the justification needs to be
> >> documented
> >>>>>>>>>       in the draft.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       There are many places in IETF protocols where a 32 bit
> unique
> >>>>>>>>>       identifier is needed, and by convention an IPv4 address
> >>>>>>>>> has
> >> been
> >>>>>>>>>       used. It would be far more useful to write a general draft
> >>>>>>>>>       identifying this problem and discussing several
> >>>>>>>>> solutions,
> >> including
> >>>>>>>>>       simply generating unique IDs manually, systematically
> >> generating a
> >>>>>>>>>       random ID, etc.  the place for such a draft may be in
> Sunset4,
> >>>>>>>>>       either as a part of the existing gap analysis draft or as
> another
> >>>>>>>>>       standalone draft.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       There was rather a long discussion about this on IDR, thread
> >>>>>>>>>       here:
> >>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&email_list=idr
> >>>>>>>>> &q
> >>>>>>>>> =%
> >>>>>>>>> 22
> >>>>>>>>> %5
> >>>>>>>>> Bidr%5D+%5Bv6ops%5D+BGP+Identifier%22&as=1&gbt=1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       And in the IDR meeting, minutes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-idr
> >>>>>>>>> (see page 11)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       I’d encourage the authors of these drafts to work
> >>>>>>>>> together on
> >> this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Wes George
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       Anything below this line has been added by my company’s
> >>>>>>>>> mail
> >>>> server,
> >>>>>>>>>       I have no control over it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       -----------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>       This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time
> >>>>>>>>> Warner
> >>>> Cable
> >>>>>>>>>       proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or
> >>>>>>>>>       subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable.
> >>>>>>>>> This
> >> E-mail is
> >>>>>>>>>       intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it
> >>>>>>>>>       is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> E-mail,
> >>>>>>>>>       you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
> >>>>>>>>>       copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and
> >>>>>>>>>       attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> >>>>>>>>>       unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please
> notify
> >>>>>>>>>       the sender immediately and permanently delete the
> >>>>>>>>> original and
> >>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>       copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> sunset4 mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> sunset4@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> OSPF mailing list
> >>>>>>> OSPF@ietf.org
> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> OSPF mailing list
> >>>>> OSPF@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OSPF mailing list
> >>> OSPF@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Isis-wg mailing list
> >> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg