BGP-4 Implementation Report
RFC 4276
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-12-20 |
02 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document reports the results of the BGP-4 implementation survey. The survey had 259 questions about ... Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document reports the results of the BGP-4 implementation survey. The survey had 259 questions about implementations' support of BGP-4 as specified in RFC 4271. After a brief summary of the results, each response is listed. This document contains responses from the four implementers that completed the survey (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop) and brief information from three that did not (Avici, Data Connection Ltd., and Nokia). The editors did not use exterior means to verify the accuracy of the information submitted by the respondents. The respondents are experts with the products they reported on. This memo provides information for the Internet community.') |
2012-08-22 |
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten |
2012-08-22 |
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bert Wijnen |
2012-08-22 |
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Margaret Wasserman |
2012-08-22 |
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Harald Alvestrand |
2012-08-22 |
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2006-01-17 |
02 | (System) | This was part of a ballot set with: draft-iesg-tcpmd5app, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-analysis, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-vuln, draft-ietf-idr-bgp4, draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-experience-protocol, draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib |
2006-01-17 |
02 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4276' added by Amy Vezza |
2006-01-17 |
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2006-01-13 |
02 | (System) | RFC published |
2005-01-31 |
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-01-31 |
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-01-31 |
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-01-31 |
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-01-28 |
02 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Alex Zinin |
2004-12-03 |
02 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-12-02 |
2004-12-02 |
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-12-01 |
02 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2004-12-01 |
02 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-12-01 |
02 | Harald Alvestrand | Review by Mary Barnes, Gen-ART It doesn't appear that all the previous Discusses have been adequately addressed. 1. Previous Comment: Russ Housley: Comment ... Review by Mary Barnes, Gen-ART It doesn't appear that all the previous Discusses have been adequately addressed. 1. Previous Comment: Russ Housley: Comment: draft-idr-bgp-implementation-01: The abstract and the introduction state that the the editors make no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided. It would be much better to make a positive statement in the introduction, and say nothing in the abstract. Perhaps something like: The editors have assembled information provided by four implementors: Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop. The draft currently states the following, which doesn't seem to match the intent of the suggestion: "This document provides a survey of the BGP-4 implementation draft- ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editors created the draft based on the input given by those contributors responding to the survey. The editors did not verify the accuracy of the information submitted by contributor by an exterior means. The contributors are experts with the products they reported on." I would agree with Russ' suggestion that the whole concept of accuracy of the information be dropped from the abstract (i.e. that second paragraph). think it's quite clear that the information is survey results (and not from some sort of validated interop event), thus there's no need to even discuss that. 2. Previous Comment: Margaret Wasserman comment on the following statement: For every item listed (259 questions), the respondents indicated whether their implementation supports the Functionality/Description or not (Y/N) indicated by the RFC2199 [RFC2119] language. Of the 259 questions in the survey, had two implementations giving an affirmative response (two "y" or "y" and "O") Also, what is an "O" response? This is >> explained later, but it would help to explain it before this >> section. 3. My previous comment on the past review was that the security considerations section states "This document does not address any security issues." However, section 3.53 "Security Considerations" does highlight that RFC2385 is a MUST authentication mechanism. For completeness, it might be useful to highlight in the security considerations section that all the implementations, as reported, did satisfy the security requirements. |
2004-11-29 |
02 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten |
2004-11-28 |
02 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-11-23 |
02 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bert Wijnen |
2004-11-23 |
02 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2004-11-23 |
02 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Alex Zinin |
2004-11-23 |
02 | Alex Zinin | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-12-02 by Alex Zinin |
2004-11-11 |
02 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-11-11 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02.txt |
2004-09-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2004-07-22 |
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-07-22 |
02 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Amy Vezza |
2004-07-22 |
02 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Thomas Narten |
2004-07-22 |
02 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
2004-07-22 |
02 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2004-07-22 |
02 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2004-07-22 |
02 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-07-21 |
02 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
2004-07-21 |
02 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2004-07-21 |
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-07-21 |
02 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Harald Alvestrand has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-07-21 |
02 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Bert Wijnen |
2004-07-21 |
02 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2004-07-21 |
02 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Harald Alvestrand has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-07-20 |
02 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie |
2004-07-20 |
02 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2004-07-20 |
02 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alex Zinin has been changed to Yes from Undefined by Alex Zinin |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alex Zinin has been changed to Undefined from Yes by Alex Zinin |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Alex Zinin |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Alex Zinin | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-07-22 by Alex Zinin |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alex Zinin |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Alex Zinin | Ballot has been issued by Alex Zinin |
2004-07-15 |
02 | Alex Zinin | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-07-12 |
02 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-07-12 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt |
2004-04-16 |
02 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup by Alex Zinin |
2004-04-13 |
02 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2004-03-16 |
02 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2004-03-16 |
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2004-03-16 |
02 | Alex Zinin | Last Call was requested by Alex Zinin |
2004-03-16 |
02 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Alex Zinin |
2004-03-16 |
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-03-16 |
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-03-16 |
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-03-16 |
02 | Alex Zinin | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2004-03-16 |
02 | Alex Zinin | Draft Added by Alex Zinin |
2004-03-11 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-00.txt |