BGP4+

[Dimitry Haskin]

At 03:41 PM 5/16/97 -0700, Pedro Marques wrote:
>    Dimitry> This is not what WE are doing. This is what one vendor is
>    Dimitry> doing and this was not approved in the IDR WG.  As matter
>    Dimitry> of fact it was decided to go with BGP5 albeit it was not
>    Dimitry> clear what features will be incorporated in the next
>    Dimitry> version of bgp.
>
>Dimitry, you do believe that the process of designing BGP 5 will be
>completed in less than 1 and 1/2 years / 2 years ?
>
I hope so.  But, I afraid you might be right considering the "interest"
IPv6 generated at the IDR WG in Memphis :(

>The whole discussion of deciding what features should be on a protocol,
>specially one as critical as BGP is most of the times the more time
>consuming phase of the IETF standards process.
>
>I'm sure that BGP 5 will be a superior alternative to BGP 4+... whatever
>BGP 5 turns out to be. In the meanwhile there are a bunch of happy people
>out there playing with the rude hacks of some bad behaved implementors.

By all means. My statement meant to make sure that there was no illusion
(as seemed Jim had) that there was an IETF consensus on BGP for IPv6 that
every vendor should immediately embrace.

>Besides in don't think the IDR WG ruled out BGP4+...
>
>./Pedro.
>
Dimitry