Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sat, 15 February 2014 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 571A71A0275; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:49:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=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 vIIJTXfED3H5; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3171A0273; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:49:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.foobar.org ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::126]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1FInRkw057412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:49:27 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::126] claimed to be cupcake.foobar.org
Message-ID: <52FFB6B7.4090408@foobar.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:49:27 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
References: <12AA6714-4BBE-4ACE-8191-AA107D04FBF4@cisco.com> <m2wqgyjifd.wl%randy@psg.com> <B4D8E670-3823-468F-AA41-FE14754F168C@steffann.nl> <11C9319C-A886-4B9E-9E8D-6947A73DB08E@castlepoint.net> <69e0019b-c13d-4989-b330-d470c37f2ee2@email.android.com> <13E534FF-C97D-4B07-BA34-E62DED3DBE88@castlepoint.net> <570C72FF-349F-4CAF-9EA7-9A847CC0420D@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <570C72FF-349F-4CAF-9EA7-9A847CC0420D@steffann.nl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Sl8xhSjvCFQVSGSnZWuQUL5LogM
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-fan-idr-ipv6-bgp-id@tools.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 18:49:38 -0000

On 15/02/2014 15:26, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Op 15 feb. 2014, om 16:13 heeft Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> het volgende geschreven:
>> On Feb 15, 2014, at 12:55 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> I use this funny thing called DNS. 
>>
>> And that has what to do with the problem of determining liveness or determining where in the topology is a ROUTER_ID?
> 
> And what does an integer called ROUTER_ID tell you about that?
> 
> And hey, you can always create records like
>   1.2.3.4.router-id.castlepoint.net IN CNAME router1.somewhere.castlepoint.net

guys, we're all having a bit of an ietf moment here: within the space of 48
hours, the conversation has ratholed.  Let's love up a bit.

The authors of the draft have a simple operational desire to make their
lives a little easier and as an operator I sympathise with this,
particularly because they are using ipv6-only networks in anger which is
more than I do.

There are two advantages of having a 128 bit router-id (with the unstated
convention of tying router-id == address of first loopback):

- firstly it's easy to identify the location of prefix announcements on
your network
- secondly the router-id can be autoconfigured.

On the other hand, implementing this will require that the authors define a
transition mechanism to allow 128 bit router-id routers interoperate with
32 bit router-id routers in such a way that router-id collisions don't occur.

If the authors want to progress this, they need to state a stronger use
case and they need to create a transition mechanism.  If they can do this
in a reasonable way which doesn't break backwards compatibility, then it
might be appropriate for idr / v6ops / etc to take another look at the draft.

Also, I wish them well because everyone understands what a router ID is and
everyone will want to paint theirs a different colour.

Nick