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

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

Few comments:

1. Yes, router ID could be just a number in some protocols and it's a routable IP address in some protocols but conditionally optional (IS-IS). In that sense it's good to if we don't use that term.
2. This topic comes again and again but without association to TE it's good to have a TLV/SUB-TLV defined which represents a routable  IP address of a router. Few months back while discussing RLFA
    I proposed this http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg04316.html (towards the end of the message).
3. Other option is as suggested by Les just relax it non-TE too and re-use the existing TLVs (5305 and 6119) for this purpose; as though these are Router ID's, these are routable.

--
Uma C.


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:57 AM
To: Karsten Thomann; Anton Smirnov
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; George, Wes; joel jaeggli; OSPF List; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs

Hi Karsten,

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

Best regards,
Xiaohu 

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Karsten Thomann [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2014年5月9日 17:50
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Anton Smirnov
> 抄送: [e-mail]; George, Wes; [e-mail]; joel 
> jaeggli; OSPF List; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]] 代表 Karsten Thomann
> >> 发送时间: 2014年5月9日 16:58
> >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Anton Smirnov
> >> 抄送: [e-mail]; George, Wes; [e-mail]; joel 
> >> jaeggli; OSPF List; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> 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:[e-mail]]
> >>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月8日 22:49
> >>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> >>>> 抄送: [e-mail]; George, Wes; [e-mail]; joel 
> >>>> jaeggli; OSPF List; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> 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:[e-mail]]
> >>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月6日 21:14
> >>>>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> >>>>>> 抄送: joel jaeggli; Acee Lindem; George, Wes; [e-mail]; 
> >>>>>> OSPF List; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> >>>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>> 主题: Re: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 5, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----邮件原件-----
> >>>>>>>> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] 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: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> >>>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:29 AM
> >>>>>>>>> To: "George, Wes" <[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: OSPF - OSPF WG List <[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> >>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]
> >>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
> >>>>>>>>>       *发送时间:*2014年5月2日1:51
> >>>>>>>>>       *收件人:*Xuxiaohu
> >>>>>>>>>       *抄送:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >>>>>>>>>       [e-mail]
> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >>>>>>>>>       [e-mail]
> >>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>>       *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"
> >> <[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *Date: *Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM
> >>>>>>>>>       *To: *"[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> >>>>>>>>>       <[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> >>>>>>>>>       "[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> >>>>>>>>>       <[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *Cc: *"[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> >>>>>>>>>       <[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> >>>>>>>>>       "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> >> <[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>>>>>>>>       *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=i
> >>>>>>>>> dr
> >>>>>>>>> &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
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> OSPF mailing list
> >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> OSPF mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OSPF mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Isis-wg mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf