Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 15 February 2014 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 C009C1A0141; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 Uw9--dg_uX_x; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4861A013C; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [160.249.232.91] (helo=u1032091.xgsnun101.imtp.tachikawa.mopera.net) by psg.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1WEb2m-0005dK-U6; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:58:09 +0000
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <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> <11C9319C-A886-4B9E-9E8D-6947A73DB08E@castlepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----OYZSPWB6ND83VK03DRYZFHV6VYZF6T"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:55:49 +0900
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>,Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-ID: <69e0019b-c13d-4989-b330-d470c37f2ee2@email.android.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fQq00xVD90WfHkjY6q0jnnJQa3I
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 08:58:21 -0000

I use this funny thing called DNS. 
-- 
Phones are not computers and suck for email

On February 15, 2014 12:58:53 PM GMT+09:00, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> wrote:
>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