Re: RFC 5549 - IPv4 Routes with IPv6 next-hop - Does it really exists?

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom com>]

On 29/Jul/20 16:57, Saku Ytti wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand what the option space is. This is like ISIS
> TLV137, protocol will populate some trash there and you'll politely
> access. It won't allow you to refer to the peer with any name prior to
> having the session up. Much like you won't see ISIS neighbours name
> when session is establishing, until it has actually loaded and
> processed the TLV137.

The IS-IS comparison came to mind as well, yes. But IS-IS is different
in that LSP's are dynamically flooded upon activation on an interfaces,
and those LSP's carry router information, including hostname.

BGP is not dynamically setup, so in my mind, you still need literal IP
addresses to set sessions up, and then this BGP hostname capability
would translate those IP addresses to remote hostnames after the
sessions have been established.

I just wanted to clarify if this is the practical implementation and
operation of the same, as the draft isn't specific on it, as I'm sure
others may consider the same thought process.

Mark.