Internet DRAFT - draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-impl
draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-impl
Inter-Domain Routing H. Gredler, Ed.
Internet-Draft B. Rajagopalan
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks, Inc.
Expires: January 5, 2015 S. Ray, Ed.
M. Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 4, 2014
BGP Link-State Information Distribution Implementation Report
draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-impl-01
Abstract
This document is an implementation report for the BGP Link-State
Information Distribution protocol as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. 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.
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 January 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Implementation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. NLRI subtypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Link NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Node NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Prefix NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Cisco Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Juniper Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3. OpenDaylight Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
1. Introduction
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 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.
2. Implementation Forms
Contact and implementation information for person filling out this
form:
IOS-XR
Name: Manish Bhardwaj
Email:manbhard@cisco.com
Vendor: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Release: IOS-XR
Protocol Role: Sender, Receiver, Originator
JUNOS
Name: Balaji Rajagopalan
Email: balajir@juniper.net
Vendor: Juniper Networks, Inc.
Release: JUNOS
Protocol Role: Sender, Receiver, Originator
OpenDaylight
Name: Dana Kutenicsova
Email: dkutenic@cisco.com
Vendor: OpenDaylight Project, Inc.
Release: ODL Hydrogen
Protocol Role: Receiver
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
3. NLRI subtypes
Does the implementation support the Network Layer Reachability (NLRI)
subtypes as described in Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
N1: Node NLRI
N2: Link NLRI
N3: IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI
N4: IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI
+--------+--------+-------+-----+
| | 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 |
+--------+--------+-------+-----+
4. Link NLRI TLV support
Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
TLV 256: Local Node Descriptor
TLV 257: Remote Node Descriptor
TLV 258: Link Local/Remote Identifier
TLV 259: IPv4 Interface address
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
TLV 260: IPv4 Neighbor address
TLV 261: IPv6 Interface address
TLV 262: IPv6 Neighbor address
TLV 263: Multi-Topology IDs
TLV 512: Autonomous System
TLV 513: BGP-LS Identifier
TLV 514: Area ID
TLV 515: IGP Router ID
TLV 1028: IPv4 router-ID of Local Node
TLV 1029: IPv6 router-ID of Local Node
TLV 1030: IPv4 router-ID of Remote Node
TLV 1031: IPv6 router-ID of Remote Node
TLV 1088: Administrative group (color)
TLV 1089: Maximum link bandwidth
TLV 1090: Maximum reservable link bandwidth
TLV 1091: Unreserved link bandwidth
TLV 1092: TE default Metric
TLV 1093: Link Protection Type
TLV 1094: MPLS Protocol Mask
TLV 1095: IGP Metric
TLV 1096: Shared Risk Link Group
TLV 1097: Opaque Link attribute
TLV 1098: Link name attribute
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
+--------------+--------+-------+-----+
| | 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 |
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
| 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 |
+--------------+--------+-------+-----+
5. Node NLRI TLV support
Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
TLV 256: Local Node Descriptor
TLV 263: Multi-Topology IDs
TLV 512: Autonomous System
TLV 513: BGP-LS Identifier
TLV 514: Area ID
TLV 515: IGP Router ID
TLV 1024: Node flag bits
TLV 1025: Opaque Node properties
TLV 1026: Node name
TLV 1027: IS-IS Area Identifier
TLV 1028: IPv4 router-ID of Local Node
TLV 1029: IPv6 router-ID of Local Node
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
+--------------+--------+-------+-----+
| | 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 |
+--------------+--------+-------+-----+
6. Prefix NLRI TLV support
Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
TLV 256: Local Node Descriptor
TLV 263: Multi-Topology IDs
TLV 264: OSPF route type
TLV 265: IP Reachability information
TLV 1152: IGP Flags
TLV 1153: Route Tag
TLV 1154: Extended Tag
TLV 1155: Prefix Metric
TLV 1156: OSPF Forwarding Address
TLV 1157: Opaque Prefix Atrribute
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
+--------------+--------+-------+-----+
| | 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 |
+--------------+--------+-------+-----+
7. Interoperable Implementations
List other implementations that you have tested interoperability of
BGP-LS Protocol Implementation.
7.1. Cisco 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.
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
7.2. Juniper 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 Cisco Systems,
Inc. IOS-XR implementation and the Opendaylight implementation.
7.3. 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 OpenDaylight Hydrogen release. BGP sender
functionality is planned in upcoming Helium release.
8. IANA Considerations
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.
9. Security considerations
No new security issues are introduced to the BGP Link-State
Information Distribution Protocol defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi, Jan Medved and Chris
Bowers for their contributions to this document.
11. Informative References
[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", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-05
(work in progress), May 2014.
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation Report July 2014
Authors' Addresses
Hannes Gredler (editor)
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: hannes@juniper.net
Balaji Rajagopalan
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Electra, Exora Business Park, Marathahalli - Sarjapur Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: balajir@juniper.net
Saikat Ray (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170, West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: sairay@cisco.com
Manish Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170, West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: manbhard@cisco.com
Gredler, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 13]
