Inter-Domain Routing H. Gredler, Ed. Internet-Draft B. Rajagopalan Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks, Inc. Expires: August 18, 2014 S. Ray, Ed. M. Bhardwaj Cisco Systems, Inc. February 14, 2014 BGP Link-State Information Distribution Implementation Report draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-impl-00 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 August 18, 2014. 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 August 18, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Link NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Node NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Prefix NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Cisco Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Juniper Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.3. TBD Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 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 JUNOS Name: Balaji Rajagopalan Email: balajir@juniper.net Vendor: Juniper Networks, Inc. Release: JUNOS Protocol Role: Sender, Receiver 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] ? Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 2014 N1: Node NLRI N2: Link NLRI N3: IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI N4: IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI +--------+--------+-------+-----+ | | IOS-XR | JUNOS | TBD | +--------+--------+-------+-----+ | Rcv.N1 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.N1 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.N2 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.N2 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.N3 | YES | NO(1) | --- | | Snd.N3 | YES | NO(1) | --- | | Rcv.N4 | YES | NO(1) | --- | | Snd.N4 | YES | NO(1) | --- | +--------+--------+-------+-----+ Note 1: Topology Prefix NLRIs get transparently relayed. 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 TLV 260: IPv4 Neighbor address TLV 261: IPv6 Interface address TLV 262: IPv6 Neighbor address TLV 263: Multi-Topology IDs Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 2014 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 +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ | | IOS-XR | JUNOS | TBD | +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ | Rcv.TLV 256 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 256 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 257 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 257 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 258 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 258 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 259 | YES | YES | --- | Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 2014 | Snd.TLV 259 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 260 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 260 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 261 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 261 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 262 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 262 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 263 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 263 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 512 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 512 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 513 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 513 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 514 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 514 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 515 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 515 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1030 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1030 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1031 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1031 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1088 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1088 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1089 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1089 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1090 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1090 | --- | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1091 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1091 | --- | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1092 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1092 | --- | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1093 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1093 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1094 | NO | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1094 | NO | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1095 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1095 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1096 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1096 | --- | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1097 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1097 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1098 | NO | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1098 | NO | NO | --- | +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 2014 5. Node 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 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 August 18, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 2014 +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ | | IOS-XR | JUNOS | TBD | +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ | Rcv.TLV 256 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 256 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 263 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 263 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 512 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 512 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 513 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 513 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 514 | --- | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 514 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 515 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 515 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1024 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1024 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1025 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1025 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1026 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1026 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1027 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1027 | --- | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1028 | YES | YES | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | --- | | Snd.TLV 1029 | YES | YES | --- | +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ 6. Prefix 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 263: Multi-Topology IDs TLV 264: OSPF route type TLV 265: IP Reachability information TLV 1152: IGP Flags Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 2014 TLV 1153: Route Tag TLV 1154: Extended Tag TLV 1155: Prefix Metric TLV 1156: OSPF Forwarding Address TLV 1157: Opaque Prefix Atrribute +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ | | IOS-XR | JUNOS | TBD | +--------------+--------+-------+-----+ | Rcv.TLV 256 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 256 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 263 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 263 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 264 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 264 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 265 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 265 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1152 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1152 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1153 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1153 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1154 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1154 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1155 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1155 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1156 | YES | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1156 | YES | NO | --- | | Rcv.TLV 1157 | --- | NO | --- | | Snd.TLV 1157 | --- | 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 and Telefonica's XXX implementation. Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 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. 7.3. TBD Implementation TBD: The TBD implementation has been tested by us with other implementations. It was so buggy that we were rolling on the floor laughing. We think this was either due to bad star alignment or perhaps increased solar flare activity. 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 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-04 (work in progress), November 2013. Gredler, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft BGP Link-State Implementation report February 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. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 US 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 August 18, 2014 [Page 11]