Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl
draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl
Network Working Group B. Venkatachalapathy
Internet-Draft K. Patel
Intended status: Experimental Cisco Systems
Expires: June 15, 2014 R. Raszuk
P. Hiremath
NTT I3
December 12, 2013
Enhanced Route Refresh Implementation Report
draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00
Abstract
This document provides an implementation report for Enhanced Route
refresh as defined in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh. The
editor 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.
Requirements Language
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 2119 [RFC2119].
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 June 15, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Implementation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Support for Enhanced Route Refresh Capability . . . . . . 3
2.2. Support for Route Refresh Message Subtypes . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Enhanced Route Refresh Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
It is sometimes necessary to perform routing consistency validations
such as checking for possible missing withdraws between BGP speakers
[RFC4271]. Currently such validations typically involve off-line,
manual operations which can be tedious and time consuming. BGP
Enhanced Route Refresh enhances the existing BGP route refresh
mechanism to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the
ending of a route refresh (which refers to the complete re-
advertisement of the Adj-RIB-Out to a peer, subject to routing
policies). BGP Enhanced Route refresh can be used to facilitate on-
line, non-disruptive consistency validation of BGP routing updates.
This document provides an implementation report for BGP Enhanced
Route Refresh as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh].
The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by
respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts
Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013
with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are
considered authoritative for the implementations for which their
responses represent.
2. Implementation Forms
Contact and implementation information for person filling out this
form:
Name: Keyur Patel, Email: keyupate@cisco.com, Vendor: Cisco Systems,
Inc. Release: IOS
Name: Balaji Venkatachalapathy, Email: bvenkata@cisco.com, Vendor:
Cisco Systems, Inc. Release: IOS
Name: Robert Raszuk, Email: robert@raszuk.net, Vendor: NTT I3.
Release: APGW Automation
Name: Prashant Hiremath, Email: prashant@ntti3.com, Vendor: NTT I3.
Release: APGW Automation
2.1. Support for Enhanced Route Refresh Capability
Does the implementation support Sec.2.1.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] Support for Enhanced Route
Refresh Capability?
Cisco: YES
NTT I3: YES
2.2. Support for Route Refresh Message Subtypes
Does the implementation support Sec.2.2.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] Subtypes for Route-Refresh
messaage?
Cisco: YES
NTT I3: YES
2.3. Enhanced Route Refresh Operations
Does the implementation support Sec.3.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] procedures for starting a
route refresh?
Cisco: YES
Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013
NTT I3: YES
Does the implementation support Sec.3.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] procedures for examining
route refresh message subtypes and take appropriate actions?
Cisco: YES
NTT I3: YES
2.4. Interoperable Implementations
List other implementations that you have tested interoperability of
Diverse Path
Cisco IOS
NTT I3
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
4. Security considerations
No new security issues are introduced to the BGP protocol by this
specification.
5. Acknowledgements
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic",
RFC 4223, October 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
6.2. Informative References
Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh]
Patel, K., Chen, E., and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Enhanced
Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
enhanced-route-refresh-04 (work in progress), June 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Balaji Venkatachalapathy
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: bvenkata@cisco.com
Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Robert Raszuk
NTT I3
101 S. Ellsworth Ave
San Mateo, CA 94401
USA
Email: robert@raszuk.net
Prashant P. Hiremath
NTT I3
101 S. Ellsworth Ave
San Mateo, CA 94401
USA
Email: prashant@ntti3.com
Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 5]
