Subject: Re: [babel] babel Digest, Vol 9, Issue 19

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:05:28 -0700

right, on MACs you loose if you assume they're unique, the IEEE block stuff
doesn't hold up anymore with VMs and whatever not and on  top you always
have to contend with the U/L MAC bit

That was one of my original comments, the unique router-ID as anchor for
self-config. Well, other people fought the problem so it's probably just
finding the right reference. Recent OSPF/ISIS work comes to mind, previous
attempts @ ZEROCONF, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2140282.2140307 and
so on ...

thanks

-- tony

Alia proclaimed:

>
> Right - Section 3 just says that the router-id is assigned and assumed
> unique.  MAC addresses can be tempting to use, but they aren't always as
> unique as assumptions have been.  There's work on providing privacy
> protecting MACs and I have vague memories about MAC reuse in data-centers;
> I'm sure someone can correct me on the details :-)  Maybe those won't apply
> here and there aren't privacy concerns around tying the identifiers
> together, but I do think it requires some thought.
>
>
>> Probably the duplicate router-id topic needs some work. Analyses on
>> impact and mechanisms for detection. The topic is related to security.
>>
>
> I think that would be useful.  The question I have for the mailing list
> and future WG chairs is whether this topic is adequately covered in the
> proposed charter or needs more text.
>
> One of the potential benefits, from a user's perspective, is the potential
> lack of configuration.  If that isn't preserved as a goal and focus, then
> it is likely to be compromised.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
>