IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [Idr] BGP Identifier

"Fan, Peng" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>
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 089971A0313; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:51:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no
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 99FicC5pLZpA; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta.chinamobile.com (cmccmta.chinamobile.com [221.176.64.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 080201A02FD; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.20.21]) by rmmx-oa_allagent02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee2530178ae654-3a654; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:49:19 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee2530178ae654-3a654
Received: from X6X8D79D8F49E2 (unknown[10.2.52.196]) by rmsmtp-oa_rmapp03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee3530178adfff-c0980; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:49:19 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee3530178adfff-c0980
From: "Fan, Peng" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>
To: 'Randy Bush' <randy@psg.com>
References: <12AA6714-4BBE-4ACE-8191-AA107D04FBF4@cisco.com> <m2wqgyjifd.wl%randy@psg.com> <006801cf2b34$22837cd0$678a7670$@chinamobile.com> <m2a9dqfr6k.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2a9dqfr6k.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:51:26 +0800
Message-ID: <009e01cf2b8b$26a43d20$73ecb760$@chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKMyHwF2uN/MFx2cQfT+KJLjKc69QG64jb+AobGL2AB8SVRaJkL6d1g
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VK3DQ6n2pek24jvIT7E--ITKAVc
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>, 'V6 Ops List' <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Idr] 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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:51:41 -0000

Hi Randy,

Just to clarify. I am not complaining we cannot assign the unique integers,
but the integers require additional planning, and that from operational
perspective causes inconvenience. Following the experience in ipv4 enabled
network would be a natural thought, especially when you want the IDs to be
helpful in troubleshooting rather than just pure numbers.

Peng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:45 AM
> To: Peng Fan
> Cc: idr wg; V6 Ops List
> Subject: Re: [Idr] [v6ops] BGP Identifier
> 
> > Thanks for the discussion and sorry for the late. Assigning an id is
> > not a difficult issue, especially on a single router. But what number
> > is to be assigned might be an issue, especially in an ISP's large
> > network, in order to guarantee the uniqueness of the ids.
> 
> as i said, if you can not assign unique 32 bit integers to your routers,
you have far
> bigger problems in your organization and network.  and having them be 128
bit
> integers is not going to solve your problems.
> 
> randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email