Re: initial draft to bootstrap some discussions

[Florent Parent <]

mrp@localhost wrote:

> I think that you don't need to introduce new attributes (import6,
> export6) to the autnum object to support IPv6 as there is an existing
> mechanism which is probably only currently used to inject static
> routes into BGP.
>
> You can just overload the protocol mechanism, ie
>
> import: [protocol <protocol1>] [into <protocol2>]
>             <import-expression>
>
> so if you wanted to just specify a rule for IPv6 you could say
>
> import: protocol IPv6
> 	from AS2764
> 	accept { 2001:210::/35 }
>
> omitting the protocol clause would imply any protocol and if you
> wanted it to just apply to IPv4 you would use "protocol IPv4".

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 ?

 import: [address-family <>] [protocol <protocol1>] [into <protocol2>]
             <import-expression>

The address-family would be IPv4 by default (backward compatibility).

> Also I'm not sure you need to go into what defines an address prefix
> range as it is just the same as for IPv4. All you really need to say
> is the same constructs apply to IPv6 as well as IPv4. If you spell it
> out for IPv6 then you run the risk of getting out of sync with the
> base document.

Good point. I'll clean that up and maybe keep a few examples instead.

Thanks Mark.

Florent.