Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier

Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> Sat, 15 February 2014 05:57 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213501A0041 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:57:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 0fXu337V9B-c for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tcb.net (mail.tcb.net [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657421A003B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.tcb.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B7ECA300083 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 05:57:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.16.15.4] (97-122-112-90.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.112.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D281E300081; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:57:52 -0700 (MST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <B4D8E670-3823-468F-AA41-FE14754F168C@steffann.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:58:53 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <11C9319C-A886-4B9E-9E8D-6947A73DB08E@castlepoint.net>
References: <12AA6714-4BBE-4ACE-8191-AA107D04FBF4@cisco.com> <m2wqgyjifd.wl%randy@psg.com> <B4D8E670-3823-468F-AA41-FE14754F168C@steffann.nl>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Fri Feb 14 22:57:53 2014
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 1.0000
X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 98689409 chance of being spam
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0023
X-DSPAM-Signature: 52ff01e142071632719215
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, within+#+#+of, 0.40000, is+#+#+#+32, 0.40000, complexity+#+#+educating, 0.40000, 32+#+number, 0.40000, please+#+#+#+can, 0.40000, Steffann+#+steffann, 0.40000, many+#+#+#+that, 0.40000, if+#+#+are, 0.40000, and+#+lose, 0.40000, casting+an, 0.40000, Hi+IPv6, 0.40000, you+#+shane, 0.40000, using+#+#+#+to, 0.40000, two+points, 0.40000, complexity+#+#+#+router, 0.40000, an+#+#+#+allows, 0.40000, availability+#+location, 0.40000, octet+#+#+each, 0.40000, unique+#+#+integer, 0.40000, many+people, 0.40000, the+#+I, 0.40000, future+#+#+ever, 0.40000, think+that, 0.40000, purporting+#+have, 0.40000, to+#+the, 0.40000, compound+#+problems, 0.40000, creating+#+#+#+avoid, 0.40000
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ORi91Gi6iej7mm5FNTtaindphw8
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 05:57:57 -0000

Hi,

I'm not casting an opinion either way wrt this specific draft; however, I do wish to make two points below.

On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id
>>> "IPv6 BGP Identifier Capability for BGP-4", Peng Fan, Zhenqiang Li,
>>> 2014-02-12
>> 
>> please no.  if you can not assign a unique four octet integer to each
>> router in your network, then you have much bigger problems.  and adding
>> a capability and more complexity to try to patch over your inability to
>> configure your routers will just compound your problems.
> 
> I agree. It's a shame that the router-id looks like an IPv4 address and IPv4 addresses are used to auto-configure it when the operator doesn't explicitly set it. There are too many people that think that a router-id is more than a 32-bit number and must be an IPv4 address, but creating more complexity to avoid educating router operators isn't the answer...

I would take exception to a ROUTER_ID being just a 32-bit integer.  Specifically, when a ROUTER_ID is an IP address that allows an operator to quickly perform diagnosis & troubleshooting using ping/traceroute/etc. to identify the availability and location within the topology of the router purporting to have said ROUTER_ID.

The other question I would raise is, in a far-off future, if we ever manage to get networks converted away from dual-stack and back to a single AFI -- namely, IPv6 -- if ROUTER_ID's are only 32-bits and you lose those capabilities mentioned above ... would you care?

-shane