Re: WG Last Call: three draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On vrijdag, sep 5, 2003, at 21:43 Europe/Amsterdam, Pekka Savola wrote:

> > 4.1  RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)

> >    This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing
> >    information and does not support IPv6.  A new EGP must be defined 
> > for
> >    the exchange of IPv6 routing information.

> > This and other references to BGP4 seem to ignore BGP4+ (RFC 2858) 
> > even though it is listed!

> True, but the comments you quote are all from sections 3-6, which 
> should
> (according to the methodology), be examined in the "vacuum", not 
> looking
> forward to documents which fix the issues.  There has been some 
> slippage
> from this though.

Ok, I'm new here, so I'm not aware of earlier discussions, but... How 
can it be useful to say that there must be a new EGP while in fact we 
already have multiprotocol extensions that enable BGP4 to support IPv6, 
which are widely implemented? This will only confuse people.