Internet DRAFT - draft-huston-idr-as4bytes-survey
draft-huston-idr-as4bytes-survey
Individual Submission G. Huston
Internet-Draft APNIC
Expires: March 24, 2006 September 20, 2005
BGP support for 4-Byte AS Numbers - Implementation Survey Report
draft-huston-idr-as4bytes-survey-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document provides a survey of BGP-4 4-Byte AS Number support
implementations.
1. Survey Summary
This document provides a survey of BGP-4 4-Byte AS Number Support
[ID.4ByteAS] implementations. After a brief summary, each response
is listed. The editor, makes no claim as to the accuracy of the
Huston Expires March 24, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 4-Byte AS Report September 2005
information provided.
2. Summary Forms
2.1. Juniper Networks
Organization: Juniper Networks
Person filling out this form:
Bruno Rijsman <brijsman@juniper.net>
Implementation:
JUNOSe 4-1-0 and later
Does the implementation include all parts of the specification:
Yes
Are there parts of the specification that are unclear where the
implementor had to exercise some judgement that may impact
interoperability?
* It isn't clear what to do if the information in the old as-path
is inconsistent with the information in the new as-path.
* There some places where AS numbers are used where it wasn't
clear how to deal with 4-octet as-numbers (e.g. extended
communities).
* It isn't spelled out that this capability cannot be dynamically
negotiated.
Has there been any interoperability testing?
Yes; no problems were discovered.
1. NEW / OLD ineroperability testing with:
Juniper ERX (older version which does not support draft)
Juniper M/T/J
Cisco 7500
2. NEW / NEW interoperability testing with:
Juniper M/T/J
Redback SmartEdge
3. Most deployed Juniper ERX routers run code which supports
4-octet AS-numbers (and the feature is enabled by default).
This provides some confidence that the draft does not cause
interoperability problems. Note however that the NEW_AS_PATH
attribute is not generated unless the AS-path contains at
least one AS-number greater than 65535 which is -as far as we
know- not yet the case in the Internet today.
Huston Expires March 24, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 4-Byte AS Report September 2005
Has there been testing of the interface between this implementation
and the 2-byte BGP implementation on the NEW (4-byte) to OLD (2byte)
update path?
Yes
Has there been testing of the OLD (2-byte) to NEW (4-byte) path?
Yes
Have there been any issues noted with the mechanism to reconstruct
the 4-byte AS path from the NEW_AS-PATH attribute and the 2-byte AS
Path on an OLD -NEW BGP update session?
It isn't clear what to do if the information in the old as-path is
inconsistent with the information in the new as-path.
Any other comments regarding the implementation
Some older versions of Cisco IOS send an unsupported capability
notification (instead of ignoring the capability) when they
receive a capability advertisement which they don't recognize and
which has non-empty data. The 4-octet as-number capability is
such a capability. Our implementation recognizes this
notification and stops automatically stops advertising the 4-octet
as-numbers capability (and others) until the next hard clear on
the BGP session.
2.2. Redback
Organization: Redback
Person filling out this form:
Albert Tian <tian@redback.com>
Does the implementation include all parts of the specification:
Yes
Are there parts of the specification that are unclear where the
implementor had to exercise some judgement that may impact
interoperability?
No.
Has there been any interoperability testing?
Yes
Has there been testing of the interface between this implementation
and the 2-byte BGP implementation on the NEW (4-byte) to OLD (2byte)
update path?
Yes (Cisco: 2-byte; Redback: 4 byte).
Has there been testing of the OLD (2-byte) to NEW (4-byte) path?
Huston Expires March 24, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 4-Byte AS Report September 2005
Yes. (Cisco: 2-byte; Redback: 4-byte).
Have there been any issues noted with the mechanism to reconstruct
the 4-byte AS path from the NEW_AS-PATH attribute and the 2-byte AS
Path on an OLD -NEW BGP update session?
No
Have there been any issues noted with the mechanism to reconstruct
the 4-byte AS path from the NEW_AS-PATH attribute and the 2-byte AS
Path on an OLD -> NEW BGP update session?
No.
Any other comments regarding the implementation
No
3. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations are noted in this document
4. Security Considerations
Security considerations are documented in [ID.4ByteAS].
5. References
[ID.4ByteAS]
Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP support for four-octet AS
number space", Work in progress, Internet
Draft: draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-10.txt, July 2005.
Huston Expires March 24, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 4-Byte AS Report September 2005
Author's Address
Geoff Huston
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
Email: gih@apnic.net
URI: http://www.apnic.net
Huston Expires March 24, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 4-Byte AS Report September 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Huston Expires March 24, 2006 [Page 6]