Re: a different proposal for ipv6 in bgp

[Erik Sherk <[e-mail]>]

> 
> attached below is a proposal for a multi-protocol (including
> ipv6) bgp
> 
> while there are a number of differences between this one and
> the bates/chandra/katz/rekhter one, one of the main motivating
> factors for this one is to support longer-than-two-byte ASs.
> it is our view that making bgp multi-protocol significantly
> extends its life.  so, although in a narrow sense the length
> of the AS is orthogonal to being multi-protocol, the logistics
> of transitions and the need to adequeately engineer the
> protocol up-front, to us, suggests the need for longer-than-
> two-byte ASs
> 
> /jws
> 
> ##################################################################
> 
> 
> Network Working Group                               Dimitry Haskin
> Internet-Draft                                        Bay Networks
> Expires June 1997                             John W. Stewart, III
>                                                                ISI
> 
> 
>                    Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP
> 
>                 draft-stewart-bgp-multiprotocol-00.txt

Hi,
	My opinion, as an operator, is that the size of the AS space
needs to be fixed rather sooner then later. We are already getting alot
of push back from the InterNic on ASs for customers. I would say that 
the figures quoted on the run rate of ASs are more a function of the
allocation policy then actual demand.

	Also, I think that the concept of an AS is kind of super-protocol.
That is, the AS remains the same across multiple protocols. I expect one
AS to advertize prefixes in multiple protocols. Also, while I'm at it, I 
don't expect IDRP to see any real deploymet; BGP has shown itself to be
very flexible. I don't see a need for a new protocol.

Erik