Re: [Idr] Implementation call for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (1/24/2017 to 1/31/2017)

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56081294D3; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:36:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8_FiP1vFnLr; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:35:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E34C4127078; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:35:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DAS14155; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:35:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:35:54 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:35:49 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: "Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <oliver.borchert@nist.gov>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'John Scudder'" <jgs@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: Implementation call for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (1/24/2017 to 1/31/2017)
Thread-Index: AQHSh+1P/OYBoqsipUW+4BJj1wfEZaFrIoHA
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:36:48 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927935813E7@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <CY1PR09MB0444DBE54A903BB24A2A0F45844D0@CY1PR09MB0444.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <24581E62-94D7-4D2E-8157-21ADF1CE7AF1@nist.gov> <00ff01d280b3$33771830$9a654890$@ndzh.com> <944428A7-399E-4DDF-9E65-9FBF94DF3F44@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <944428A7-399E-4DDF-9E65-9FBF94DF3F44@nist.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.151.75]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090203.58A5484C.0080, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: ff127dbd12045e7879b873b0fe868305
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4uzaTrgNwjls9FeHUWQumZyIcdg>
Cc: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Implementation call for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (1/24/2017 to 1/31/2017)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:36:02 -0000

Hi Oliver, 

Thanks for the updates of the implementation report. I've updated the wiki page accordingly, including some editorial changes:

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-implementations

Please review and let me know if you have any comments.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borchert, Oliver (Fed) [mailto:oliver.borchert@nist.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:41 AM
> To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; 'John Scudder' <jgs@juniper.net>
> Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Implementation call for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages
> (1/24/2017 to 1/31/2017)
> 
> Sue,
> We updated our implementations and below find the updated implementation
> reports for QuaggaSRx and BGPSEC-IO:
> 
> Current Wiki summary:
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-implementations
> 
> 1	Announce via BGP Capability advertisement (RFC5492) as BGP Extended
> Capability	Yes	Yes
> 2	If Extended Message Capability supported, Implementation MUST be able
> to:	-	-
> 2a	RECEIVE OPEN message larger than 4096 bytes (section 4, paragraph 2)	Yes
> 	Yes
> 2b	RECEIVE A UPDATE message larger tan 4096 bytes	Yes	Yes
> 3	Applications putting data into BGP Extended messages MUST limit size of
> payload to handle max message sizes on pathway	Yes	Yes
> 4	Supports EXTENDED MESSAGE, but peer has not advertised BGP Extended
> Capability	-	-
> 4a	SHOULD NOT accept message	yes	yes
> 4b	MAY Accept EXTENDED MESSAGE (config/implementation knob)	Yes	Yes
> 5	Does not support EXTENDED Message (no support in code)
> 5a	Does not send Extended Message capability
> 5b	If receives Extended Message, follows RFC4221 handling and sends Bad
> message length Notification
> 
> 
> Updated Summary:
> 
> QuaggaSRx
> ==========
> 1) yes
> 2a) – Draft was updated – N/A
> 2b) yes
> 3) yes
> 4a) yes
> 4b) yes
> 5a) yes, can be configured
> 5b) yes, if configured to not support
> 
> BGPSEC-IO
> =========
> 1) yes
> 2a) – Draft was updated – N/A
> 2b) yes
> 3) yes
> 4a) yes
> 4b) yes
> 5a) yes, can be configured
> 5b) yes, if configured to not support
> 
> Oliver
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Oliver Borchert, Computer Scientist
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> (Phone) 301.975.4856 , (Fax) 301.975.6238
>