Skip to main content

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: draft-idr-bgp-implementation-01: The …
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