Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey
draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey
Network Working Group E. Chen
Internet Draft Editor
Expiration Date: December 2006 Cisco Systems
Implementation Survey for BGP ORF and Prefix-ORF
draft-chen-bgp-orf-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.
Abstract
This document provides an implementation report for these two
documents: "Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4" and
"Address Prefix Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4".
Chen [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey-00.txt June 2006
1. Summary
This document provides an implementation report for these two
documents: "Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4" [1],
and "Address Prefix Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4" [2]. Each
response is listed. The editor makes no claim as to the accuracy of
the information provided.
The following organizations reported having implementations of the
drafts: Cisco Systems, IP Infusion, and Redback Networks.
2. Implementation Forms
2.1. Cisco Systems
Person filling out this form:
Keyur Patel (keyupate@cisco.com)
Implementation (software version):
IOS 12.2S and beyond
List the ORF types that are implemented in your implementation:
a) communities ORF: No
b) extended communities ORF: Yes
c) prefix ORF: Yes
Does your implementation follow the normal procedures for handling a
ROUTE-REFRESH request that does not carry ORF entries?
Yes
Does your implementation defer route advertisements as specified in
the specification after receiving ORF entries with "when-to-refresh"
set to DEFER?
Yes
How does your implementation handle route advertisements after
receiving ORF entries with "when-to-refresh" set to IMMEDIATE?
a) re-advertise all routes in the Adj-RIB-OUT for the AFI/SAFI
(i.e., follow the normal ROUTE-REFRESH procedure), but take
Chen [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey-00.txt June 2006
the ORF entries into account.
Yes
b) maintain extra state and do not re-advertise the routes that
have not been effected by the ORF entries, as suggested by
the specification.
No
Does your implementation follow all other procedures specified in the
Operation Section of the specification?
Yes
Has there been any interoperability testing? List the ORF types
tested.
No
Are there parts of the specification that are unclear where the
implementor had to exercise some judgment that may impact the
implementation and/or interoperability?
a) ORF base spec: No
b) Prefix-ORF spec: No
2.2. IP Infusion
Person filling out this form:
Dilip Pandit (dpandit@ipinfusion.com)
Implementation (software version):
ZebOS 7.3
List the ORF types that are implemented in your implementation:
a) communities ORF: No
b) extended communities ORF: No
c) prefix ORF: Yes
Does your implementation follow the normal procedures for handling a
ROUTE-REFRESH request that does not carry ORF entries?
Chen [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey-00.txt June 2006
Yes
Does your implementation defer route advertisements as specified in
the specification after receiving ORF entries with "when-to-refresh"
set to DEFER?
Yes
How does your implementation handle route advertisements after
receiving ORF entries with "when-to-refresh" set to IMMEDIATE?
a) re-advertise all routes in the Adj-RIB-OUT for the AFI/SAFI
(i.e., follow the normal ROUTE-REFRESH procedure), but take
the ORF entries into account.
Yes
b) maintain extra state and do not re-advertise the routes that
have not been effected by the ORF entries, as suggested by
the specification.
No
Does your implementation follow all other procedures specified in the
Operation Section of the specification?
Yes
Has there been any interoperability testing? List the ORF types
tested.
Yes, tested the prefix-ORF with Cisco IOS.
Are there parts of the specification that are unclear where the
implementor had to exercise some judgment that may impact the
implementation and/or interoperability?
a) ORF base spec: No
b) Prefix-ORF spec: No
2.3. Redback Networks
Person filling out this form:
Albert Tian (tian@redback.com)
Chen [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey-00.txt June 2006
Implementation (software version):
SE2.6.7 and beyond
List the ORF types that are implemented in your implementation:
a) communities ORF: No
b) extended communities ORF: No
c) prefix ORF: Yes
Does your implementation follow the normal procedures for handling a
ROUTE-REFRESH request that does not carry ORF entries?
Yes
Does your implementation defer route advertisements as specified in
the specification after receiving ORF entries with "when-to-refresh"
set to DEFER?
Yes
How does your implementation handle route advertisements after
receiving ORF entries with "when-to-refresh" set to IMMEDIATE?
a) re-advertise all routes in the Adj-RIB-OUT for the AFI/SAFI
(i.e., follow the normal ROUTE-REFRESH procedure), but take
the ORF entries into account.
Yes
b) maintain extra state and do not re-advertise the routes that
have not been effected by the ORF entries, as suggested by
the specification.
No
Does your implementation follow all other procedures specified in the
Operation Section of the specification?
Yes
Has there been any interoperability testing? List the ORF types
tested.
Yes, tested the Prefix-ORF with Cisco.
Chen [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey-00.txt June 2006
Are there parts of the specification that are unclear where the
implementor had to exercise some judgment that may impact the
implementation and/or interoperability?
a) ORF base spec: No
b) Prefix-ORF spec: No
3. Acknowledgments
The editor would like to thank Dilip Pandit, Keyur Patel, and Albert
Tian for submitting the implementation forms.
4. References
[1] E. Chen, and Y. Rekhter, "Cooperative Route Filtering Capability
for BGP-4", draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-13.txt.
[2] E. Chen, and S. Sangli, "Address Prefix Based Outbound Route
Filter for BGP-4", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-03.txt.
5. Editor's Address
Enke Chen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: enkechen@cisco.com
6. Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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.
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
Chen [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-orf-survey-00.txt June 2006
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Chen [Page 7]
