Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier

Randy Bush <> Sat, 15 February 2014 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C009C1A0141; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uw9--dg_uX_x; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4861A013C; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1WEb2m-0005dK-U6; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:58:09 +0000
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----OYZSPWB6ND83VK03DRYZFHV6VYZF6T"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Randy Bush <>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:55:49 +0900
To: Shane Amante <>,Sander Steffann <>
Message-ID: <>
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 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 <> wrote:
>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 <>
>> Hi,
>>>> "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
>>> router in your network, then you have much bigger problems.  and
>>> a capability and more complexity to try to patch over your inability
>>> 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
>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?