Inter-Domain Routing | H. Gredler, Ed. |
Internet-Draft | B. Rajagopalan |
Intended status: Informational | C. Bowers |
Expires: August 2, 2015 | Juniper Networks, Inc. |
S. Ray, Ed. | |
M. Bhardwaj | |
Cisco Systems, Inc. | |
January 29, 2015 |
BGP Link-State Information Distribution Implementation Report
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-impl-02
This document is an implementation report for the BGP Link-State Information Distribution protocol. The editors did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents. The respondents are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for which their responses represent. Respondents were asked to only use the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 2, 2015.
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
In order to share network link-state and traffic engineering information collected with external components using the BGP routing protocol a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format is required.
This document provides an implementation report for the BGP Link-State Information Distribution NLRI Format as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
The scope of the interoperability test is sucessful encoding and decoding of BGP-LS advertisements. No application specific logic has been verified.
The editors did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for which their responses represent. Respondents were asked to only use the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.
Contact and implementation information for person filling out this form:
Does the implementation support the Network Layer Reachability (NLRI) subtypes as described in Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL | |
---|---|---|---|
Rcv.N1 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.N1 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.N1 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.N2 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.N2 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.N2 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.N3 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.N3 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.N3 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.N4 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.N4 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.N4 | YES | NO | NO |
Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL | |
---|---|---|---|
Rcv.TLV 256 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 256 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 256 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 257 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 257 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 257 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 258 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 258 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 258 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 259 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 259 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 259 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 260 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 260 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 260 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 261 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 261 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 261 | NO | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 262 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 262 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 262 | NO | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 263 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 263 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 263 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 512 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 512 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 512 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 513 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 513 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 513 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 514 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 514 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 514 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 515 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 515 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 515 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1029 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1030 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1030 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1030 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1031 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1031 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1031 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1088 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1088 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1088 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1089 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1089 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1089 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1090 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1090 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1090 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1091 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1091 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1091 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1092 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1092 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1092 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1093 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1093 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1093 | NO | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1094 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1094 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1094 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1095 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1095 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1095 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1096 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1096 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1096 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1097 | YES | YES | NO |
Snd.TLV 1097 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1097 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1098 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1098 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1098 | NO | NO | NO |
Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL | |
---|---|---|---|
Rcv.TLV 256 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 256 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 256 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 263 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 263 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 263 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 512 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 512 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 512 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 513 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 513 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 513 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 514 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 514 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 514 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 515 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 515 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 515 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1024 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1024 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1024 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1025 | YES | YES | NO |
Snd.TLV 1025 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1025 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1026 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1026 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1026 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1027 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1027 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1027 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1029 | YES | NO | NO |
Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL | |
---|---|---|---|
Rcv.TLV 256 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 256 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 256 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 263 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 263 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 263 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 264 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 264 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 264 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 265 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 265 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 265 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1152 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1152 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1152 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1153 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1153 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1153 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1154 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1154 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1154 | NO | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1155 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1155 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1155 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1156 | YES | YES | YES |
Snd.TLV 1156 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1156 | YES | NO | NO |
Rcv.TLV 1157 | YES | YES | NO |
Snd.TLV 1157 | YES | YES | NO |
Org.TLV 1157 | YES | NO | NO |
List other implementations that you have tested interoperability of BGP-LS Protocol Implementation.
Cisco: The Cisco Systems, Inc. IOS-XR implementation should be interoperable with other vendor BGP-LS Protocol implementations. In particular, we have tested our interoperability with Juniper's JUNOS implementation.
Juniper: The Juniper Networks, Inc. JUNOS implementation should be interoperable with other vendor BGP-LS Protocol implementations. In particular, we have tested our interoperability with the Cisco Systems, Inc. IOS-XR implementation and the Opendaylight implementation.
Opendaylight: The Opendaylight implementation should be interoperable with other vendor BGP-LS Protocol implementations. In particular, we have tested our interoperability with Juniper's JUNOS implementation and the Cisco Systems, Inc. IOS-XR implementation. BGP receiver is implemented in the OpenDaylight Hydrogen release. BGP sender functionality is planned in the upcoming Helium release.
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: The IANA has requested that this section remain in the document upon publication as an RFC. This note to the RFC Editor, however, may be removed.
No new security issues are introduced by the BGP Link-State Information Distribution Protocol defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi and Jan Medved for their contributions to this document.
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] | Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A. and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using BGP", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10, January 2015. |