Skip to main content

Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4
RFC 6286

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Dan Romascanu)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-05-11)
It is probably worth mentioning that the 4-octet unsigned integer is in network byte order so that someone doesn't assign it somewhere that doesn't use internal network byte order and gets an unexpected result.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-05-06)
Please consider the editorial comments from the Gen-ART Review by
  David Black on 19-Apr-2011:

  At the end of Section 3, please remove the word "proposed" from the
  quoted text below.  These changes will no longer be "proposed" when
  published as an RFC.
  >
  > Therefore it is concluded that the revisions proposed in this
  > document do not introduce any backward compatibility issue with the
  > current usage of the BGP Identifier.

  Please consider replacing the Security Considerations (Section 4) with
  the following two sentences:
  >
  > This extension to BGP does not introduce new security
  > considerations. BGP security considerations are discussed
  > in [RFC4271].

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()