Internet DRAFT - draft-acee-ospf-prefix-link-attr-impl
draft-acee-ospf-prefix-link-attr-impl
Network Working Group A. Lindem
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track May 8, 2015
Expires: November 9, 2015
OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes Extension Implementation Report
draft-acee-ospf-prefix-link-attr-impl-03.txt
Abstract
This document reports the results of the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link
Attributes implementation survey. The survey has seven questions
related to the implementer's support of OSPFv2 Prefix/Link
Attributes. After a brief summary of the results, each response is
listed. This document contains responses from six implementers who
completed the survey. No external means were used to verify the
accuracy of the information submitted by the respondents. The
respondents are considered experts on the products they reported on.
Additionally, responses were omitted from implementers who indicated
that they have not implemented the function yet.
Status of This Memo
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 November 9, 2015.
Copyright Notice
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
Lindem Expires November 9, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report May 2015
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Summary Results of Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Implementation Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Alcatel-Lucent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
This document reports the results of the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link
Attributes [PREFIX-LINK-ATTR] implementation survey. The survey has
seven questions related to the implementer's support of OSPFv2
Prefix/Link Attributes. The OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes are
extensions to the base OSPFv2 protocol [OSPFV2] to allow additional
information to be associated with an OSPFv2 link or attribute. After
a brief summary of the results, each response is listed. This
document contains responses from four implementers who completed the
survey. No external means were used to verify the accuracy of the
information submitted by the respondents. The respondents are
Lindem Expires November 9, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report May 2015
considered experts on the products they reported on. Additionally,
responses were omitted from implementers who indicated that they have
not implemented the function yet.
1.1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS].
2. Summary Results of Survey
Four vendors replied to the survey. These include Alcatel-Lucent,
Cisco, Huawei, Juniper. Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent also did
interoperability testing. The Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent
implementations are in released software versions. The Huawei and
Junipers implementation releases are pending. For prefix attributes,
the recent change incorporating the A-Flag is pending implementation
for all four vendors. Implementation of the N-flag is pending for
the Huawei and Juniper implementations. Otherwise, the vendors have
full implementations of [PREFIX-LINK-ATTR]. For all four vendors,
segment routing [SEGMENT-ROUTING] was an application making use of
the extensions. Additionally, Cisco has implemented Topology-
Independent Loop-Free Alternatives (TI-LFA) [TI-LFA] and Bit Indexed
Egress Replication (BIER) advertisement [BIER].
3. Implementation Survey Results
3.1. Alcatel-Lucent
The Alcatel-Lucent responses to the survey questions are as follows:
1. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
Yes
2. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV? Yes
3. If yes for #3, have you implemented the A and N flags which have
been moved from the segment routing extensions? Yes for N-flag,
A-flag not yet.
4. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Link opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV? Yes
Lindem Expires November 9, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report May 2015
5. In your implementation, what applications utilize the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix/Link attributes (e.g., segment routing)? Segment
Routing
6. Is the function in a generally available software release? Yes -
Product Name: SR OS, Release: 13.0.R4
7. Have you tested interoperability with any other vendors? If yes,
with whom? Yes. With Cisco.
8. Would you be amenable to your data being included in an
implementation survey document (complete with vendor
identification)? Yes
3.2. Cisco
The Cisco responses to the survey questions are as follows:
1. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
Yes
2. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV? Yes
3. If yes for #3, have you implemented the A and N flags which have
been moved from the segment routing extensions? Yes for N-flag,
A-flag not yet.
4. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Link opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV? Yes
5. In your implementation, what applications utilize the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix/Link attributes (e.g., segment routing)? Segment
Routing, Topology-Independent Loop-Free-Alternatives (TI-LFA),
and OSPF Bit Index Egress Replication (BIER) extensions
6. Is the function in a generally available software release?
Segment Routing and TI-LFA are available in IOS-XR 5.3.2. OSPF
BIER Extensions are not available yet.
7. Have you tested interoperability with any other vendors? If yes,
with whom? Yes. With Alcatel-Lucent.
8. Would you be amenable to your data being included in an
implementation survey document (complete with vendor
identification)? Yes
Lindem Expires November 9, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report May 2015
3.3. Huawei
The Huawei responses to the survey questions are as follows:
1. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
Yes
2. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV? Yes
3. If yes for #3, have you implemented the A and N flags which have
been moved from the segment routing extensions? Not yet.
4. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Link opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV? Yes
5. In your implementation, what applications utilize the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix/Link attributes (e.g., segment routing)? Segment
Routing
6. Is the function in a generally available software release? Not
yet. It will be in Huawei Versatile Routing Platform (VRP)
7. Have you tested interoperability with any other vendors? No
8. Would you be amenable to your data being included in an
implementation survey document (complete with vendor
identification)? Yes
3.4. Juniper
The Juniper responses to the survey questions are as follows:
1. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
Yes
2. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV? Yes
3. If yes for #3, have you implemented the A and N flags which have
been moved from the segment routing extensions? Not yet.
4. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Link opaque LSA and
OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV? Yes
Lindem Expires November 9, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report May 2015
5. In your implementation, what applications utilize the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix/Link attributes (e.g., segment routing)? Segment
Routing
6. Is the function in a generally available software release? Not
yet. It will be in JUniper Network Operating System (JUNOS).
7. Have you tested interoperability with any other vendors? No
8. Would you be amenable to your data being included in an
implementation survey document (complete with vendor
identification)? Yes
4. Security Considerations
This document reports the results of an OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes
implementation survey. As such, it does not introduce any security
risks.
5. IANA Considerations
No IANA actions are required.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[OSPFV2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[PREFIX-LINK-ATTR]
Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-04.txt (work
in progress), April 2015.
[RFC-KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2. Informative References
[BIER] Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, I., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions
for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00.txt
(work in progress), April 2015.
Lindem Expires November 9, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report May 2015
[SEGMENT-ROUTING]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-04.txt (work in progress), February
2015.
[TI-LFA] Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
and S. Litkowski, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using
Segment Routing", draft-francois-spring-segment-routing-
ti-lfa-01.txt (work in progress), October 2014.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
Thanks to Wim Henderickx, Greg Harkins, Peter Psenak, Eric Wu, and
Shraddha Hegde for their responses to the survey.
Author's Address
Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems
301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513
USA
Email: acee@cisco.com
Lindem Expires November 9, 2015 [Page 7]
