IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] BGP Identifier

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Fri, 14 February 2014 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 233BE1A0375; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:17:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 peTdDHRcEVU1; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE34E1A02C0; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:17:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1599; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392412631; x=1393622231; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lymx2vxGX8hLLnnVSCeoveMxqGzTh1Z3qu2p4ufGTgs=; b=J/23bBPjJ6hIAfJj47X9DtT985vDbQcPyyj6JT6lh81gLbVGJX8ZnAVI qd+yWw8QM1sAdgHWUsJXFZFb9YowrMofiv29VpPnpndNx1bxNTjeXm9J4 d4kPupaym9v6hf7AgzM1qNXoF0obIet5iVLErGKTb4nruHlQDp6ur5wOc Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAK+G/lKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgwY4wAaBGBZ0giUBAQEDAQEBATc0CwULAgEIGB4QJwslAgQOBYd9CA3ITxeORjMHgySBFASYLIEykHGDLQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,847,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="20600500"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2014 21:17:11 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1ELHBJT023416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:17:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.214]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:17:10 -0600
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] BGP Identifier
Thread-Index: AQHPKcE/TYiQMAjLk0S8LJu44RYd7Zq1QLyf
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:17:09 +0000
Message-ID: <AF7F01DA-4F42-4ABD-803F-4825CB77A312@cisco.com>
References: <12AA6714-4BBE-4ACE-8191-AA107D04FBF4@cisco.com> <m2wqgyjifd.wl%randy@psg.com>, <B4D8E670-3823-468F-AA41-FE14754F168C@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <B4D8E670-3823-468F-AA41-FE14754F168C@steffann.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rlwsy27F74hitBjLP4NeLPzTjwE
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: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:17:15 -0000

+1. 

We had a bit of discussion on MPLS WG ~2yrs ago during LDP-ipv6 formulation and we managed to quickly put the suggestion about LDP router-id being a 128-bit entity in the back burner. 

Good or bad - many vendor implementations historically tied router-id to an interface in addition or instead of a 4-context entity. Thankfully, many have already evolved to not continue with that model in the v6 paradigm. Just a matter of time for others to catch up. 

Cheers,
Rajiv

> On Feb 14, 2014, at 2:13 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...
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email