IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BGP-4+

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Wed, 18 December 1996 23:25 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa12773; 18 Dec 96 18:25 EST
Received: from merit.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27580; 18 Dec 96 18:25 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) id RAA07961 for idr-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:59:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) with SMTP id RAA07956 for <bgp@merit.edu>; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:59:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA26076 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for bgp@ans.net); Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:59:45 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:59:45 -0500
Message-Id: <199612182259.OAA20995@puli.cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <skh@merit.edu>
Cc: dkatz@cisco.com, bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: BGP-4+
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Dec 96 16:37:50 EST." <199612182137.QAA06366@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 14:59:12 PST
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Yakov.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email