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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> 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.

Indeed. So if you want to stick to the original idea for sections 3-6,
the whole sentence starting  "A new EGP..." should simply be deleted.
It's necessary and sufficient to state that the protocol does not
support IPv6. 

    Brian