> I don't think this document should mention BGMP or any other specific
> protocol. I think it's fine to state the issue generically (i.e. not
> guaranteed to be routed by all protocols).
OK.
But given that I didn't understand the one sentence statement it seems
like this explanation needs to be at least a paragraph if not longer.
> For this type of address, AAP is not really needed either.
> There is no effect on MBGP.
> The effect on BGMP is just that it makes it deployable without MASC or
> doing anything different with MBGP, and hence provides a much cleaner
> solution than MSDP does for IPv4.
>
> I agree that it would be helpful to add a paragraph discussing this in
> the draft.
Great.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
