|
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 © The Internet Society (2005).
This document provides a survey of BGP-4 4-Byte AS Number support implementations.
This document provides a survey of BGP-4 4-Byte AS Number Support [ID.4ByteAS] (Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, “BGP support for four-octet AS number space,” July 2005.) implementations. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editor, makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided.
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.
- NEW / OLD ineroperability testing with:
- Juniper ERX (older version which does not support draft)
Juniper M/T/J
Cisco 7500
- NEW / NEW interoperability testing with:
- Juniper M/T/J
Redback SmartEdge
- 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.
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.
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?
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
No IANA considerations are noted in this document
Security considerations are documented in [ID.4ByteAS] (Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, “BGP support for four-octet AS number space,” July 2005.).
| [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. |
| Geoff Huston | |
| Asia Pacific Network Information Centre | |
| Email: | gih@apnic.net |
| URI: | http://www.apnic.net |
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.
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 © 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.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.