Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
RFC 6368

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2011-06-07 for -)
No email
send info
A rather well written document. Thank you.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-08)
No email
send info
(1) Some acronyms aren't expanded - VRF was the one that 
got me as well as ASBR. I guess implementers of this would 
know but just in case.

(2) The diagram at the start of section 4 could be clearer.
I found it confusing anyway. 

(3) last line of p8 - is that "should" or "SHOULD"? When 
would it be ok to not contain the ASN of the customer? 

(4) s/VPN network/VPN/ (Sorry, pet peeve of mine:-)

(5) When is it ok to include the NEXT_HOP attribute in
an ATTR_SET? Text says SHOULD NOT which implies there
are cases when its the right thing to do - documenting
(some of) those would be better.

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-08 for -)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 7-Jun-2011 includes two
  suggestions for improvement.
  (1) The authors readily accepted the first suggestion.  Please
  make sure the changes related to the first one make it into the
  document prior to publication.

  (2) The authors questioned the value of the second suggestion.  My
  personal preference would be to include a very general statement the
  need for protection against memory exhaustion attacks in the security
  considerations section, but I will not demand one.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-09 for -)
No email
send info
These ought to be pretty easy to fix up.  Most are about 2119 language usage.

#1) elide the reference from the abstract

#2) Section 4 contains the following:

   When a PE received route is imported into a VRF, its IGP metric, as
   far as BGP path selection is concerned, should be the metric to the
   remote PE address, expressed in terms of the service provider metric


#3) r/ATTR_SET is an optional transitive/ATTR_SET is an OPTIONAL transitive 

#4) Section 5 contains the following:

   should contain the autonomous-system number of the customer network
   that originates the given set of attributes.


#5) Section 5 contains the following:

   BGP speakers that support the
   extensions defined in this document must also support RFC4893


#6) Section 5 contains the following:

   present it should be ignored by the receiving PE.


#7) Section 7 contains the following:

   Otherwise, in the case of an autonomous-
   system number mismatch, the set of attributes to be associated
   with the route shall be constructed as follows:


   When advertising the VRF route to an Exterior BGP peer, a PE
   router shall apply steps 1 to 4 defined above and subsequently
   prepend its own autonomous-system number to the AS_PATH attribute.

r/shall/SHALL ?

#8) Section 8 contains the following:

   It is recommend that different VRFs of the same VPN (i.e. in
   different PE routers) which are configured with iBGP PE-CE peering
   sessions use different Route Distinguisher values.

r/recommended/RECOMMENDED ?

also r/Route Distinguisher values/Route Distinguisher (RD) values

#9) In Section 8, expand NLRI