Re: [Idr] Call for implementation information on drafts past WG LC

Sue,

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 12:58:14PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 08:48:20AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> > The IDR chairs would like to start the new year by shipping IDR drafts past
> > WG LC to the IESG for publication.  We need your help with information on
> > implementations  on the following: 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > ..         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria  
> 
> I will try to get you commentary on what level of conformance Juniper has
> with this draft within the next two weeks.

Compliance statements for these types of documents are funny.  Both of the
additional conditions in the document are MAYs and thus everyone is
compliant. :-)

That said, Juniper implements the 3.1 check against whether a nexthop is
resolvable in a given data plane protocol; e.g. MPLS.  This may be adjusted
using configuration.  (Our "resolution ribs" feature.)

Juniper implements the 3.2 path availability check in several variations,
but not all.  For example, BFD may be used to protect MPLS generated
nexthops for LDP and RSVP.  For IP nexthops distributed via an IGP, the IGP
may be protected using BFD.

> > 
> > ..         draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-10.txt
> 
> Juniper expects to have a release containing rtc-no-rt in a release targeted
> for shipment early this year.
> 
> > ..         draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10.txt 

It is also worth noting that Juniper has partial support for the
tunnel-encaps draft, particularly in support of specific SR-TE applications.
We are not fully compliant.

> > 
> > ..         draft-ietf-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-17.txt  
> 
> Juniper is one of the implementors of ORR.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr