RFC 3065: Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 5065.
Current document in this lineage: RFC 5065 — Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes an extension to BGP which may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3065
- Published
- February 2001
- Authors
- P. Traina; D. McPherson; J. Scudder
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 11
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Standards lineage
This document is one revision in a chain of 3 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.
- RFC 1965 (1996)
- RFC 3065 (2001)
- RFC 5065 (2007) ✓
Read the full history of Autonomous System Confederations for BGP →
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3107Carrying Label Information in BGP-4Obsoleted
May 2001
- RFC 2918Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4Updated
September 2000
- RFC 2796BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGPObsoleted
April 2000
- RFC 3392Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4Obsoleted
November 2002
- RFC 3562Key Management Considerations for the TCP MD5 Signature OptionCurrent
July 2003
- RFC 2545Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain RoutingCurrent
March 1999
- RFC 2439BGP Route Flap DampingCurrent
November 1998
- RFC 2385Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature OptionObsoleted
August 1998
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?