Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>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