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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Brian E Carpenter 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. 

Agreed, this should be OK.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings