Subject: [v6ops] draft-matthews-v6ops-design-guidelines

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:11:03 +0000

Hi author,

It said in your presentation slides that "My sense is that most operators do (b). " 

My question is what's the major reason for most operators to prefer GUA to LLA when configuring a static route. The major reason I can think of is it's easy to type the CLI (i.e., easy to remember for human) by using GUA.  

If the major reason as the above, it seems that the work we should do is to offer more tutorials about how to use the LLA more conveniently (e.g., configure a local mapping of name to LLA and use the corresponding name instead of the LLA itself if appropriate), rather than updating RFC4861 immediately just due to this unimportant reason, IMHO.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:51:16 -0700

If you were present in the V6OPS meeting today, then you heard the discussion of this question. 
Other points mentioned, in addition to what the current draft says, include:
- Next-hop doesn't change if line-card changes
- Issue with redistributing a static route with a LLA next-hop into another protocol
I plan to carefully listen to the audio recording, then capture the points made in the document.
- Philip

On 2012-08-02, at 10:11 , Xuxiaohu wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:05:36 -0700

Philip,

Additional items to consider.

- if a router is on a public peering exchange, its common to use an IP
from the exchange prefix (which will be GUA)

- will using the LLA work if I am using an eBGP session over multiple
links by managing session on the Loopback? (it's common to use router
loopback on these cases which does not rely on IP of interface).

- How do people (that use LLA for peering) plan to deal with DNS records?
Would they generate records which resolve to LLAs? (operators may want to
have DNS names for IPs which the use for key functions)

As noted in our post WG meeting conversation, using LLAs seem to be
workable in some cases, but not all cases. (perhaps someone can prove me
wrong).

Regards,

Victor K

On 12-08-02 1:51 PM, "Philip Matthews" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> My question is what's the major reason for most operators to prefer GUA
>>to LLA when configuring a static route. The major reason I can think of
>>is it's easy to type the CLI (i.e., easy to remember for human) by using
>>GUA.  
>> 
>> If the major reason as the above, it seems that the work we should do
>>is to offer more tutorials about how to use the LLA more conveniently
>>(e.g., configure a local mapping of name to LLA and use the
>>corresponding name instead of the LLA itself if appropriate), rather
>>than updating RFC4861 immediately just due to this unimportant reason,
>>IMHO.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Xiaohu

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:01:52 +0000

Yes, I had ever encountered the first issue (i.e., Next-hop has to be changed when the line-card changes). As for the second issue, when the redistributed route is advertised to a remote peer which is not within the same LAN as the next-hop router, the next-hop should be changed accordingly.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

________________________________________
发件人: Philip Matthews [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年8月3日 4:51
到: Xuxiaohu
Cc: [email-masked]
主题: Re: [v6ops] draft-matthews-v6ops-design-guidelines