Re: initial draft to bootstrap some discussions

[Mark Prior <]

At 9:58 AM -0400 18/10/01, Florent Parent wrote:
> I like that. I prefer a more flexible (and scalable) way to specify IPv6
> other address families (like what you have here).
>
> If we overload the protocol field this way, aren't we losing the
> capability of specifying, say "protocol RIP" for IPv6 ?  Would it be
> preferable to add a new optional "address-family" syntax ?
Well the "normal" way you use it is to say things like

import: protocol STATIC into BGP4
	from AS2764
	accept AS2764:RS-PROVIDER^0-30

so maybe what you want would be specified as

import: protocol IPv6 into RIP
	from AS2764
	accept ANY

Can you explain what you are trying to do so we can attempt to be on 
the same wavelength :-)

On the multicast front does anyone have a short list of features that 
need to be supported? Obviously NLRI needs to be set but that could 
be accomplished via an action statement.

Mark.
--