[Idr] RFC3065bis Implementation Report

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,
Included below is the RFC3065bis implementation report.  I plan
to add one additional vendor once I get a bit more information from
them.

I'll post to internet-drafts@ once the acceptance window for new
drafts reopens.

If you have comments, clarifications, or would like your implementation
listed please send me email (note that I'm not planning to be at the
upcoming meeting per a work conflict).

Thanks!

-danny


------------------------
INTERNET-DRAFT                               Danny McPherson
                                         Arbor Networks, Inc.
Expires: May 2006                              November 2005

                     RFC3065bis Implementation Report
               <draft-mcpherson-idr-rfc3065bis-impl-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/1id-abstracts.html

    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.



Copyright Notice

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.










McPherson, D.                                                   [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT              Expires: May 2006              November 2005


                                 Abstract


    This document provides an implementation report for Autonomous  
System
    Confederations for BGP as defined in draft-ietf-idr-
    rfc3065bis-05.txt.

    The editor 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.







































McPherson, D.                                                   [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT              Expires: May 2006              November 2005


Table of Contents


    1.  
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
    2. Implementation  
Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1. Operations  
Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2. AS_CONFED Segement Types and AS_PATH  
Handling . . . . . . .   5
     2.3. AS_PATH  
Modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4. Error  
Handling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5. Path  
Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6. Interoperable  
Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    3. Security  
Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    4.  
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    5.  
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1. Normative  
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2. Informative  
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
    6. Author's  
Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7


































McPherson, D.                                                   [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT              Expires: May 2006              November 2005


1.  Introduction


    Autonomous System Confederations for BGP describes an extension to
    BGP which may be used to create a confederation of autonomous  
systems
    that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers
    external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh"
    requirement inherent to BGP.  The intention of this extension is to
    aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of
    maintaining a large autonomous system.

    This document provides an implementation report for Autonomous  
System
    Confederations for BGP as defined in draft-ietf-idr-
    rfc3065bis-05.txt.

    The editor 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.



2.  Implementation Forms


    Contact and implementation information for person filling out this
    form:

      Name: Robert Raszuk
      Email: [e-mail]
      Vendor: Cisco Systems Inc
      Release: IOS and IOS-XR

      Name: Manish Vora
      Email: [e-mail]
      Vendor: ECI Telecom (formerly Laurel Networks)
      Release: Shadetree 3.2



2.1.  Operations Compliance


    Does your implementation follow the procedures outlined in the
    Operation Section of [RFC3065bis]?

      Cisco: YES



McPherson, D.                                     Section 2.1.  [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT              Expires: May 2006              November 2005


      ECI: YES



2.2.  AS_CONFED Segement Types and AS_PATH Handling


    Does your implementation recognize the two AS_CONFED Segment Types
    (AS_CONFED_SET and AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE) defined in [RFC3065bis]?

      Cisco: YES
      ECI: YES

    Does your implementation use it's Member-AS number in all
    transactions with peers that are members of the same BGP
    confederation as the local speaker?

      Cisco: YES
      ECI: YES

    Does your implementation treat receipt of an AS_PATH attribute
    containing an autonomous system matching its own AS Confederation
    Identifier in the same fashion as if it had received a path
    containing its own AS number?

      Cisco: YES
      ECI: YES

    Does your implementation treat receipt of an AS_PATH attribute
    containing an AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET which contains its
    own Member-AS Number in the same fashion as if it had received a  
path
    containing its own AS number?

      Cisco: YES
      ECI: YES



2.3.  AS_PATH Modification


    Does your implementation follow the AS_PATH Modification Rules
    outlined in [RFC3065bis]?

      Cisco: YES
      ECI: YES





McPherson, D.                                     Section 2.3.  [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT              Expires: May 2006              November 2005


2.4.  Error Handling


    Does your implementation follow the Error Handling procedures
    outlined in [RFC3065bis]?

      Cisco: YES
      ECI: YES



2.5.  Path Selection


    Does your implementation follow the Path Selection guidelines
    outlined in [RFC3065bis]?

      Cisco: YES
      ECI: YES



2.6.  Interoperable Implementations


    List other implementations that you have tested for Autonomous  
System
    Confederatins for BGP [RFC3065bis]:

      Cisco: JUNOS, IOS, IOS-XR, Redback, GateD
      ECI: IOS, JUNOS, Redback



3.  Security Considerations




4.  Acknowledgments


    To Be Supplied...









McPherson, D.                                       Section 4.  [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT              Expires: May 2006              November 2005


5.  References




5.1.  Normative References


[BGP-4] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and Hares, S., "A Border Gateway
     Protocol 4", Internet-Draft, "Work in Progress".

[RFC 1965] Traina, P. "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP",
     RFC 1965, June 1996.

[RFC 3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D. and Scudder, J., "Autonomous
     System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.



5.2.  Informative References


[RFC 1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
     (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

[RFC 1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a
     full mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.

[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
     Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.






6.  Author's Address




    Danny McPherson
    Arbor Networks, Inc.
    Phone: [phone]
    EMail:  [e-mail]






McPherson, D.                                       Section 6.  [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT              Expires: May 2006              November 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

    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
    [e-mail].

Disclaimer of Validity

    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 Statement

    Copyright (C) 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.


Acknowledgment

    Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
    Internet Society.





McPherson, D.                                       Section 6.  [Page 8]


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr