Le 2014-05-01 à 13:50, George, Wes <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I got a bounce-back on all 3 draft aliases, trying again with the authors’s > email addresses directly. > > From: <George>, "George, Wes" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs > > I see that you have submitted two drafts for IPv6 router IDs in ISIS and > OSPF, noting that the existing router ID is only 4 octets. This has also come > up in IDR for BGP. The authors of that draft are copied. I’ll give you a > similar set of feedback to what I gave them - > > It is important to distinguish between places where a unique identifier is > needed, and by convention an IPv4 address assigned to the device has been > used to provide that unique ID, vs. places where the actual IP address has > some sort of importance to the protocol (I.e. That information must be > available to take action on). > In other words, is the protocol requirement that the ID be unique across some > domain, but that the actual value does not matter, or is the protocol > requirement that the value must correspond to something on the router? In > many of the former cases, the fact that the value isn’t relevant has been > used to make recommendations that are easier for humans to deal with (I.e. > Tying the router ID to an IP address) but that value as a human-readable set > of info does not necessarily justify changes to the protocol to support that > convention as we move to IPv6. > I would argue that the router ID used in routing protocols must merely be > unique, but it doesn’t have to be an IP address at all. Thus it is not > strictly necessary to create a new field to carry IPv6 addresses when > operating without IPv4 addresses on a network. If you believe otherwise, the > justification needs to be documented in the draft. > > There are many places in IETF protocols where a 32 bit unique identifier is > needed, Back about 13 years ago, when we converted the NTP code to IPv6 and run the first IPv6 NTP server, we had the same issue. NTP4 had a 32 bit id to uniquely identify servers. We tried various ways with NTP protocol engineers and the result was to keep the 32 bit id as is, with some additional protocol logic "behind the scene". Marc. > and by convention an IPv4 address has been used. It would be far more useful > to write a general draft identifying this problem and discussing several > solutions, including simply generating unique IDs manually, systematically > generating a random ID, etc. the place for such a draft may be in Sunset4, > either as a part of the existing gap analysis draft or as another standalone > draft. > > There was rather a long discussion about this on IDR, thread here: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&email_list=idr&q=%22%5Bidr%5D+%5Bv6ops%5D+BGP+Identifier%22&as=1&gbt=1 > > And in the IDR meeting, minutes: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-idr (see page 11) > > I’d encourage the authors of these drafts to work together on this. > > Thanks, > > Wes George > > Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have > no control over it. > ----------- > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > sunset4 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
