RFC 5701: IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Current specifications of BGP Extended Communities (RFC 4360) support the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, but do not support an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community. The lack of an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community may be a problem when an application uses the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, and one wants to use this application in a pure IPv6 environment. This document defines a new BGP attribute, the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community, that addresses this problem. The IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community is similar to the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, except that it carries an IPv6 address rather than an IPv4 address. [STANDARDS TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5701
- Published
- November 2009
- Authors
- Y. Rekhter
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 5
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Referenced by
2 later RFCs formally update or obsolete part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 56684-Octet AS Specific BGP Extended CommunityCurrent
October 2009
- RFC 5492Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4Updated
February 2009
- RFC 5292Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4Current
August 2008
- RFC 5065Autonomous System Confederations for BGPUpdated
August 2007
- RFC 5004Avoid BGP Best Path Transitions from One External to AnotherCurrent
September 2007
- RFC 4893BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number SpaceObsoleted
May 2007
- RFC 4781Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP with MPLSCurrent
January 2007
- RFC 4761Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and SignalingUpdated
January 2007
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?