Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier

Nick Hilliard <> Sat, 15 February 2014 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571A71A0275; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:49:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vIIJTXfED3H5; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3171A0273; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::126]) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::126] claimed to be
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:49:27 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <>
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 <>, Shane Amante <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: idr wg <>, V6 Ops List <>,
Subject: Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> het volgende geschreven:
>> On Feb 15, 2014, at 12:55 AM, Randy Bush <> 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

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.