Hey John,
Thus spake John Kristoff via NANOG ([email protected]) on Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 10:53:43AM -0600: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:14:10 -0600 > John Kristoff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'd be interested in hearing if people set a hostname on their BGP > > routers and send it to peers (internal and/or external). > > > > I'm also interested in hearing if you see external peers sending it to > > you. > > > > I know BIRD and FRR support this capability, but I"m not aware of > > others and I'm guessing it is relatively rare in practice? > > Most of what I learned about usage was in response to this thread, but > I had a few brief responses from others elsewhere. Awareness and > interest in it remains lukewarm at best. > > I soon after realized that ExaBGP supported this capability as well. > > The original discussion and reaction (pro and con) to the feature > is here: > > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability%22> > > Also note, there is an IANA assignment for it (73). > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/capability-codes.xhtml> > > I'm guessing this capability will just sort of live on forever, rarely > used until, if ever, those software implementations decide they want to > remove it. I have to admit I didn't even know it existed. In our measurement/monitoring systems we do record the BGP router ID of every neighbor. This is handy as it should[*] be unique to an AS and can help with troubleshooting for where you may have multiple peering sessions to the same router, particularly across address-families. IMHO, adding a hostname field seems at best duplicative and probably is just another thing to be poorly maintained and go stale over time. Dale [*] that should is lower-case in RFC6286 section 2.1 ...huh _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/N6Y2MJZQNTFPMWIU6F6TAB4WGVVNXODY/
