Re: BGP-4+

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>om>, Yakov Rekhter writes:
> Sue,
> 
> > A few comments on the draft:
> > 
> > 
> > 1) From the section below and the address family,
> >    IPv6 and IPv4 cannot point to a common next hop.
> 
> They can point to the same router. However, the next hop for IPv6 NLRI
> has to point to an IPv6 address, while the next hop for IPv4 NLRI has
> to point to an IPv4 address.

On an IPv6 router why can't you just pack IPv4 addresses into IPv6
using the prescribed IPv6 top bits and just have one routing table and
forwarding table?

> > 2) Security Considerations
> > 
> > BGP-4++ is just as secure or un-secure as BGP-4.  
> 
> To be more precise the two new attributes do not alter
> BGP-4 security properties.

That covers it.

> > Is it your understanding that users need this security or is
> > TCP good enough?
> 
> I would like to get a feedback from the WG on this question.

Not really but we have to live with it.

How about if we fixed that in a separate extension to BGP4?

Would the ability to quickly reestablish with a grace period eliminate
the RST problem be enough?  If so we already have text for an
extension that is backwards compatible with BGP and provides that.

> Yakov.

Curtis