[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-thomas-mpls-ldp-survey2002) 00 RFC 5038

Network Working Group                                         Bob Thomas
Internet Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: April 2006
                                                           Loa Andersson
                                                                Acreo AB

                                                            October 2005


                   LDP Implementation Survey Results


                 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.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.















Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 1]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


Abstract

   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a method for forwarding
   packets that uses short, fixed-length values carried by packets,
   called labels, to determine packet nexthops [RFC3031]).  A
   fundamental concept in MPLS is that two Label Switching Routers
   (LSRs) must agree on the meaning of the labels used to forward
   traffic between and through them.  This common understanding is
   achieved by using a set of procedures, called a label distribution
   protocol, by which one LSR informs another of label bindings it has
   made.  One such protocol called LDP [RFC3036] is used by LSRs to
   distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding along normally routed
   paths.  This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations
   conducted in August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from
   proposed to draft standard.




Table of Contents

    1          Introduction  .......................................   3
    1.1        The LDP Survey Form  ................................   3
    1.2        LDP Survey Highlights  ..............................   4
    2          Survey Results for LDP Features  ....................   5
    3          References  .........................................   8
    4          Author Information  .................................   8
    Appendix A Full LDP Survey Results  ............................   9
    Appendix B LDP Implementation Survey Form  .....................  14
               Full Copyright Notice  ..............................  22






















Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 2]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


1. Introduction

   This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations conducted in
   August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from proposed to
   draft standard.

   This section highlights some of the survey results.  Section 2
   presents the survey results for LDP features, and Appendix A presents
   the survey results in full.  Appendix B contains a copy of the survey
   form.


1.1. The LDP Survey Form

   The LDP implementation survey requested the following information
   about LDP implementation:

   - Responding organization.  Provisions were made to accommondate
     organizations that wished to respond anonymously.

   - The status, availability and origin of the LDP implementation.

   - The LDP features implemented and for each whether it was tested
     against an independent implementation.  The survey form listed each
     LDP feature defined by RFC3036 and requested one of the following
     as the status of the feature:

        t: Tested against another independent implementation;
        y: Implemented but not tested against independent
           implementation;
        n: Not implemented;
        x: Not applicable to this type of implementation;

     In addition for the 'n' status the responder could optionally
     provide the following additional information:

        s: RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing;
        u: Utility of feature unclear;
        r: Feature not required for feature set implemented;

   This document uses the following conventions for reporting survey
   results for a feature:

     At By Cn indicates:

     - A responders implemented the feature and tested it against
       another independent implementation (t);
     - B responders implemented the feature but have not tested it



Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 3]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


       against an independent implmented (y);
     - C responders did not implement the the feature (n);

     (Ds Eu Fr) indicates optional responses:

     - D responders thought the RFC3036 specification of the feature
       inadequate, unclear, or confusing (s).
     - E responders thought the utility of the feature unclear (u).
     - F responders considered the feature not required for the feature
       set implemented (combines x and r).


1.2. LDP Survey Highlights

   This section presents some highlights from the implementatation
   survey.

     - There were 12 responses to the survey, 2 of which were anonymous.
       At the time of the survey 10 of the implementation were available
       as products and 2 were in beta test.  Eleven of the
       implementations were available for sale; the remaining
       implementation had been done by a company no longer in business.

     - Seven implementations were independently written from the RFC3036
       specification.  Four implementations combined purchased or free
       code with code written by the responder.

       One of the implementations was fully purchased code ported to the
       vendor's platform.

     - Every LDP feature in the survey questionnaire was implemented by
       at least 2 respondents.

     - Each of the 8 LDP Label Distribution Modes implemented and
       tested;

         8t 2y 2n   DU,  Ord Cntl, Lib Reten
         7t 1y 4n   DU,  Ind Cntl, Lib Reten
         7t 1y 4n   DoD  Ord Cntl, Cons Reten
         6t 1y 5n   DoD, Ind Cntl, Cons Reten
         6t 1y 5n   DU,  Ord Cntl, Cons Reten
         6t 0y 6n   DU,  Ind Cntl, Cons Reten
         4t 3y 5n   DoD, Ord Cntl, Lib Reten
         4t 2y 6n   DoD, Ind,Cntl, Lib Reten







Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 4]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


     - Platform and Interface Label Spaces were both widely supported.

         12t 0y 0n  Per Platform
          7t 1y 4n  Per Interface

     - LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported.

         12t 0y 0n  Basic/Directly Connected
         11t 1y 0n  Targeted

     - The TCP MD5 Option for LDP session TCP connections was not widely
       implemented.

         3t 1y 8n


2. Survey Results for LDP Features

   This section presents the survey results for LDP features using the
   notational convention described in Section 1.2.  It omits the
   optional status responses (s, u, r); complete results may be found in
   Appendix A.

     Feature
        Survey Result

     Interface types
        12t 0y 0n      Packet
        2t 3y 7n       Frame Relay
        6t 2y 4n       ATM
     Label Spaces
        12t 0y 0n      Per platform
        7t 1y 4n       Per interface
     LDP Discovery
        12t 0y 0n      Basic
        11t 1y 0n      Targeted
     LDP Sessions
        12t 0y 0n      Directly Connected
        11t 1y 0n      Targeted
     LDP Modes
        7t 1y 4n       DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten
        8t 2y 2n       DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten
        6t 0y 6n       DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten
        6t 1y 5n       DU, Ord cntl Cons reten
        4t 2y 6n       DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten
        4t 3y 5n       DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten
        6t 1y 5n       DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten
        7t  1y 4n      DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten



Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 5]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


     Loop Detection
        9t 2y 1n
     TCP MD5 Option
        3t 1y 8n
     LDP TLVs
        7t 4y 0n       U-bit
        7t 4y 0n       F-bit
        12t 0y 0n      FEC TLV
        6t 5y 1n         Wildcard
        12t 0y 0n        Prefix
        10t 0y 2n        Host
        12t 0y 0n      Address List TLV
        10t 1y 1n      Hop Count TLV
        9t 2y 1n       Path Vector TLV
        12t 0y 0n      Generic Label TLV
        6t 2y 4n       ATM Label TLV
        2t 3y 7n       Frame Relay Label TLV
        12t 0y 0n      Status TLV
        9t 3y 0n       Extended Status TLV
        6t 4y 2n       Returned PDU TLV
        6t 4y 2n       Returned Message TLV
        12t 0y 0n      Common Hello Param TLV
        12t 0y 0n        T-bit
        11t 0y 1n        R-bit
        11t 1y 0n        Hold Time
        12t 0y 0n      IPv4 Transport Addr TLV
        7t 2y 3n       Config Sequence Num TLV
        1t 1y 1n       IPv6 Transport Addr TLV
        12t 0y 0n      Common Session Param TLV
        12t 0y 0n        KeepAlive Time
        11t 0y 1n        PVLim
        11t 1y 0n        PDU Max Length
        6t 2y 2n       ATM Session Param TLV
                         M values
        5t 3y 4n           0 No Merge
        3t 3y 6n           1 VP Merge
        5t 3y 4n           2 VC Merge
        3t 3y 6n           3 VP & VC Merge
        6t 2y 4n         D-bit
        6t 2y 4n         ATM Label Range Component
        2t 3y 7n       FR Session Param TLV
                         M values
        2t 3y 7n           0 No Merge
        2t 3y 7n           1 Merge
        2t 3y 7n         D-bit
        2t 3y 7n         FR Label Range Component
        10t 0y 2n      Label Request Msg ID TLV
        2t 5y 5n       Vendor-Private TLV



Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 6]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


        1t 5y 6n       Experimental TLV
     LDP Messages
        12t 0y 0n      Notification Msg
        12t 0y 0n      Hello Msg
        12t 0y 0n      Initialization Msg
        12t 0y 0n      KeepAlive Msg
        12t 0y 0n      Address Msg
        12t 0y 0n      Address Withdraw Msg
        12t 0y 0n      Label Mapping Msg
        10t 0y 2n        Label Request Msg Id TLV
        10t 1y 1n        Hop Count TLV
        10t 1y 1n        Path Vect TLV
        9t 0y 3n       Label Request Msg
        9t 0y 3n         Hop Count TLV
        9t 0y 3n         Path Vect TLV
        12t 0y 0n      Label Withdraw Msg
        12t 0y 0n        Label TLV
        11t 0y 1n      Label Release Msg
        10t 1y 1n        Label TLV
        9t 2y 1n       Label Abort Req Msg
        2t 5y 5n       Vendor-Private Msg
        1t 5y 6n       Experimental Msg
     LDP Status Codes
        9t 3y 0n       Success
        8t 4y 0n       Bad LDP Id
        7t 5y 0n       Bad Ptcl Version
        7t 5y 0n       Bad PDU Length
        7t 5y 0n       Unknown Message Type
        7t 5y 0n       Bad Message Length
        7t 4y 0n       Unknown TLV
        7t 5y 0n       Bad TLV length
        7t 5y 0n       Malformed TLV Value
        11t 1y 0n      Hold Timer Expired
        11t 1y 0n      Shutdown
        10t 1y 1n      Loop Detected
        7t 5y 0n       Unknown FEC
        11t 1y 0n      No Route
        9t 3y 0n       No Label Resources
        8t 3y 1n       Label Resources Avaliable
                       Session Rejected
        7t 5y 0n         No Hello
        9t 2y 1n         Param Advert Mode
        9t 2y 1n         Param PDUMax Len
        8t 3y 1n         Param Label Range
        7t 5y 0n         Bad KA Time
        11t 1y 0n      KeepAlive Timer Expired
        9t 1y 2n       Label Request Aborted
        6t 5y 1n       Missing Message Params



Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 7]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


        7t 5y 0n       Unsupported Addr Family
        7t 5y 0n       Internal Error

3. References

   [RFC3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label
   Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3036] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, B.
   Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC3036, January 2001.

   [RFC3037] B. Thomas, E. Gray, "LDP Applicability", RFC3037, January
   2001.


4. Author Information

   Bob Thomas
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Ave.
   Boxborough MA 01719

   Loa Andersson
   Acreo AB
   Isafjordsgatan 22
   Kista, Sweden

























Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 8]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results

   LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0]

   =======================================================================
   A. General information.

   Responders:

     Anonymous:   2
     Public:      10

       Agilent Technologies
       Celox Networks, Inc.
       Cisco Systems, Inc.
       Data Connection Ltd.
       NetPlane Systems, Inc
       Trillium, An Intel Company
       Redback Networks
       Riverstone Networks
       Vivace Networks, Inc.
       Wipro Technologies

   =======================================================================
   B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin

   Status:
        [  ]  Development
        [  ]  Alpha
        [ 2]  Beta
        [10]  Product
        [  ]  Other (describe):

   Availability
        [  ]  Public and free
        [  ]  Only to selected organizations/companies but free
        [11]  On sale.
        [  ]  For internal company use only
        [ 1]  Other:
   Implementation based on:  (check all that apply)
        [ 1]  Purchased code
             (please list source if possible)
        [  ]  Free code
             (please list source if possible)
        [ 7]  Internal implementation
             (no outside code, just from specs)
        [ 4]  Internal implementation on top of purchased
             or free code



Thomas & Andersson                                              [Page 9]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


   =======================================================================
   C. LDP Feature Survey.

   For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the
   implementation using one of the following:

       't'   tested against another independent implementation
       'y'   implemented but not tested against independent
             implementation
       'n'   not implemented
       'x'   not applicable to this type of implementation

     Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing
               using one of the following:

               's'  RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
               'u'  utility of feature unclear
               'r'  feature not required for feature set implemented

     Feature                                           RFC3036 Section(s)
       Survey Result

     Interface types                                   2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2
       12t 0y 0n            Packet
       2t 3y 7n(3r 1x)      Frame Relay
       6t 2y 4n(3r)         ATM
     Label Spaces                                      2.2.1, 2.2.2
       12t 0y 0n            Per platform
       7t 1y 4n(4r)         Per interface
     LDP Discovery                                     2.4
       12t 0y 0n            Basic                      2.4.1
       11t 1y 0n            Targeted                   2.4.2
     LDP Sessions                                      2.2.3
       12t 0y 0n            Directly Connected         --
       11t 1y 0n            Targeted                   2.3
     LDP Modes                                         2.6
       7t 1y 4n(2u 1r)      DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten    2.6
       8t 2y 2n(1r)         DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten    2.6
       6t 0y 6n(2u 2r)      DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten   2.6
       6t 1y 5n(1u 2r)      DU, Ord cntl Cons reten    2.6
       4t 2y 6n(2u 2r)      DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten   2.6
       4t 3y 5n(2r)         DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten   2.6
       6t 1y 5n(2u 2r)      DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten  2.6
       7t  1y 4n(1u 2r)     DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten  2.6
     Loop Detection                                    2.8
       9t 2y 1n
     TCP MD5 Option                                    2.9
       3t 1y 8n(1u 1r 1x)



Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 10]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


     LDP TLVs                                          3.3, 3.4, throughout
       7t 4y 0n(1 noreply)  U-bit                      3.3
       7t 4y 0n(1 noreply)  F-bit                      3.3
                            FEC TLV                    1, 2.1, 3.4.1
       6t 5y 1n(1r)           Wildcard                 3.4.1
       12t 0y 0n              Prefix                   3.4.1
       10t 0y 2n(s1 1u 1r)    Host                     2.1, 3.4.1
       12t 0y 0n            Address List TLV           3.4.3
       10t 1y 1n            Hop Count TLV              3.4.4
       9t 2y 1n             Path Vector TLV            3.4.5
       12t 0y 0n            Generic Label TLV          3.4.2.1
       6t 2y 4n(2r)         ATM Label TLV              3.4.2.2
       2t 3y 7n(1u 2r 1x)   Frame Relay Label TLV      3.4.2.3
       12t 0y 0n            Status TLV                 3.4.6
       9t 3y 0n             Extended Status TLV        3.5.1
       6t 4y 2n             Returned PDU TLV           3.5.1
       6t 4y 2n             Returned Message TLV       3.5.1
       12t 0y 0n            Common Hello Param TLV     3.5.2
       12t 0y 0n                T-bit                  3.5.2
       11t 0y 1n                R-bit                  3.5.2
       11t 1y 0n                Hold Time              3.5.2
       12t 0y 0n            IPv4 Transport Addr TLV    3.5.2
       7t 2y 3n             Config Sequence Num TLV    3.5.2
       1t 1y 1n(1u 4r 1x)   IPv6 Transport Addr TLV    3.5.2
       12t 0y 0n            Common Session Param TLV   3.5.3
       12t 0y 0n              KeepAlive Time           3.5.3
       11t 0y 1n              PVLim                    3.5.3
       11t 1y 0n              PDU Max Length           3.5.3
       6t 2y 2n(1r 1x)      ATM Session Param TLV      3.5.3
                              M values
       5t 3y 4n(1r 1x)          0 No Merge             3.5.3
       3t 3y 6n(s 1 1r 1x)      1 VP Merge             3.5.3
       5t 3y 4n(1r 1x)          2 VC Merge             3.5.3
       3t 3y 6n(s1 1r 1x)       3 VP & VC Merge        3.5.3
       6t 2y 4n(1r 1x)        D-bit                    3.5.3
       6t 2y 4n(1r 1x)        ATM Label Range          3.5.3
                              Component
       2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x)   FR Session Param TLV       3.5.3
                              M values
       2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x)       0 No Merge             3.5.3
       2t 3y 7n                 1 Merge                3.5.3
       2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x)     D-bit                    3.5.3
       2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x)     FR Label Range           3.5.3
                                Component
       10t 0y 2n            Label Request Msg ID TLV   3.5.7
       2t 5y 5n(1u 1r)      Vendor-Private TLV         3.6.1.1
       1t 5y 6n(2r)         Experimental TLV           3.6.2




Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 11]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


     LDP Messages                                      3.5, throughout
       12t 0y 0n            Notification Msg           3.5.1
       12t 0y 0n            Hello Msg                  3.5.2
       12t 0y 0n            Initialization Msg         3.5.3
       12t 0y 0n            KeepAlive Msg              3.5.4
       12t 0y 0n            Address Msg                3.5.5
       12t 0y 0n            Address Withdraw Msg       3.5.6
       12t 0y 0n            Label Mapping Msg          3.5.7
       10t 0y 2n(1r)          Label Request Msg Id TLV 3.5.7
       10t 1y 1n              Hop Count TLV            3.5.7
       10t 1y 1n              Path Vect TLV             3.5.7
       9t 0y 3n(1x)         Label Request Msg          3.5.8
       9t 0y 3n(1x)           Hop Count TLV            3.5.8
       9t 0y 3n(1x)           Path Vect TLV            3.5.8
       12t 0y 0n            Label Withdraw Msg         3.5.10
       12t 0y 0n              Label TLV                3.5.10
       11t 0y 1n            Label Release Msg          3.5.11
       10t 1y 1n              Label TLV                3.5.11
       9t 2y 1n             Label Abort Req Msg        3.5.9
       2t 5y 5n(1u 1r)      Vendor-Private Msg         3.6.1.2
       1t 5y 6n(2r)         Experimental Msg           3.6.2
     LDP Status Codes                                  3.4.6
       9t 3y 0n             Success                    3.4.6, 3.9
       8t 4y 0n             Bad LDP Id                 3.5.1.2.1
       7t 5y 0n             Bad Ptcl Version           3.5.1.2.1
       7t 5y 0n             Bad PDU Length             3.5.1.2.1
       7t 5y 0n             Unknown Message Type       3.5.1.2.1
       7t 5y 0n             Bad Message Length         3.5.1.2.1
       7t 4y 0n(1 noreply)  Unknown TLV                3.5.1.2.2
       7t 5y 0n             Bad TLV length             3.5.1.2.2
       7t 5y 0n             Malformed TLV Value        3.5.1.2.2
       11t 1y 0n            Hold Timer Expired         3.5.1.2.3
       11t 1y 0n            Shutdown                   3.5.1.2.4
       10t 1y 1n            Loop Detected              3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1
       7t 5y 0n             Unknown FEC                3.4.1.1
       11t 1y 0n            No Route                   3.5.8.1
       9t 3y 0n             No Label Resources         3.5.8.1
       8t 3y 1n             Label Resources Avaliable  3.5.8.1
                            Session Rejected           2.5.3, 3.5.3
       7t 5y 0n               No Hello                 2.5.3, 3.5.3
       9t 2y 1n               Param Advert Mode        2.5.3, 3.5.3
       9t 2y 1n               Param PDUMax Len         2.5.3, 3.5.3
       8t 3y 1n               Param Label Range        2.5.3, 3.5.3
       7t 5y 0n               Bad KA Time              3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3
       11t 1y 0n              KeepAlive Timer Expired  2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3
       9t 1y 2n             Label Request Aborted      3.5.9.1
       6t 5y 1n             Missing Message Params     3.5.1.2.1
       7t 5y 0n             Unsupported Addr Family    3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1



Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 12]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


       7t 5y 0n             Internal Error             3.5.1.2.7


















































Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 13]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


Appendix B. LDP Implementation Survey Form

   LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0]

   The purpose of this form is to gather information about
   implementations of LDP as defined by RFC3036.  The information is
   being requested as part of the process of advancing LDP from Proposed
   to Draft Standard.

   The form is patterned after the implementation report form used for
   HTTP/1.1; see:

     http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/http1.1-implementations.txt

   =======================================================================
   A. General information.

   Please provide the following information.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------

   Organization:

   Organization url(s):

   ----------------------------------------------------------------

   Product title(s):

   Brief description(s):

   ----------------------------------------------------------------

   Contact for LDP information
      Name:
      Title:
      E-mail:
      Organization/department:
      Postal address:
      Phone:
      Fax:


   =======================================================================
   B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin

   Please check [x] the boxes that apply.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------




Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 14]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


   Status:
        [ ]  Development
        [ ]  Alpha
        [ ]  Beta
        [ ]  Product
        [ ]  Other (describe):

   Availability
        [ ]  Public and free
        [ ]  Only to selected organizations/companies but free
        [ ]  On sale.
        [ ]  For internal company use only
        [ ]  Other:

   Implementation based on:  (check all that apply)
        [ ]  Purchased code
             (please list source if possible)
        [ ]  Free code
             (please list source if possible)
        [ ]  Internal implementation
             (no outside code, just from specs)
        [ ]  Internal implementation on top of purchased
             or free code
             List portions from external source:
             List portions developed internally:


   =======================================================================
   C. LDP Feature Survey.

   For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the implementation
   using one of the following:

       't'   tested against another independent implementation
       'y'   implemented but not tested against independent implementation
       'n'   not implemented
       '-'   not applicable to this type of implementation

     Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing using
               one of the following:

               's'  RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
               'u'  utility of feature unclear
               'r'  feature not required for feature set implemented







Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 15]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
                     |                             | Status
                     |                             | (one of t, y, n, -; if n,
   Feature           | RFC3036 Section(s)          | optionally one of s, u, r)
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   Interface types   | 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Packet          |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Frame Relay     |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     ATM             |                             |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   Label Spaces      | 2.2.1, 2.2.2
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Per platform    |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Per interface   |                             |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   LDP Discovery     | 2.4
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Basic           | 2.4.1                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Targeted        | 2.4.2                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
   LDP Sessions      | 2.2.3
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Directly        | --                          |
     Connected       |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Targeted        | 2.3                         |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   LDP Modes         | 2.6
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DU, Ind cntl,   | 2.6                         |
     Lib retention   |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DU, Ord cntl,   | 2.6                         |
     Lib retention   |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DU, Ind cntl,   | 2.6                         |
     Cons retention  |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DU, Ord cntl,   | 2.6                         |
     Cons retention  |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DoD, Ind cntl,  | 2.6                         |
     Lib retention   |                             |



Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 16]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DoD, Ord cntl,  | 2.6                         |
     Lib retention   |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DoD, Ind cntl,  | 2.6                         |
     Cons retention  |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     DoD, Ord cntl,  | 2.6                         |
     Cons retention  |                             |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   Loop Detection    | 2.8                         |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   TCP MD5 Option    | 2.9                         |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   LDP TLVs          | 3.3, 3.4, throughout
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     U-bit           | 3.3                         |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     F-bit           | 3.3                         |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     FEC             | 1., 2.1, 3.4.1              |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Wildcard      | 3.4.1                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Prefix        | 2.1, 3.4.1                  |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Host          | 2.1, 3.4.1                  |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Address List    | 3.4.3                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Hop Count       | 3.4.4                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Path Vector     | 3.4.5                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Generic Label   | 3.4.2.1                     |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     ATM Label       | 3.4.2.2                     |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Frame Relay     | 3.4.2.3                     |
     Label           |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Status          | 3.4.6                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Extended Status | 3.5.1                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Returned PDU    | 3.5.1                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Returned Message| 3.5.1                       |



Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 17]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Common Hello    | 3.5.2                       |
     Parameters      |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       T-bit         | 3.5.2                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       R-bit         | 3.5.2                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Hold Time     | 3.5.2                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     IPv4 Transport  | 3.5.2                       |
     Address         |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Configuration   | 3.5.2                       |
     Sequence Number |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     IPv6 Transport  | 3.5.2                       |
     Address         |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Common Session  | 3.5.3                       |
     Parameters      |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       KeepAlive Time| 3.5.3                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       PVLim         | 3.5.3                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Max PDU Length| 3.5.3                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     ATM Session     | 3.5.3                       |
     Parameters      |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       M values      |                             |
         0 No Merge  | 3.5.3                       |
         ------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
         1 VP Merge  | 3.5.3                       |
         ------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
         2 VC Merge  | 3.5.3                       |
         ------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
         3 VP &      | 3.5.3                       |
           VC Merge  |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       D-bit         | 3.5.3                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       ATM Label     | 3.5.3                       |
       Range         |                             |
       Component     |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Frame Relay     | 3.5.3                       |



Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 18]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


     Session         |                             |
     Parameters      |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       M values      |                             |
         0 No Merge  | 3.5.3                       |
         ------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
         1 Merge     | 3.5.3                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       D-bit         | 3.5.3                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Frame Relay   | 3.5.3                       |
       Label Range   |                             |
       Component     |                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Request   | 3.5.7                       |
     Message ID      |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Vendor-Private  | 3.6.1.1                     |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Experimental    | 3.6.2                       |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   LDP Messages      | 3.5, throughout
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Notification    | 3.5.1                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Hello           | 3.5.2                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Initialization  | 3.5.3                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     KeepAlive       | 3.5.4                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Address         | 3.5.5                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Address Withdraw| 3.5.6                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Mapping   | 3.5.7                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Label Request | 3.5.7                       |
       Message ID TLV|                             |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Hop Count TLV | 3.5.7                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Path Vect TLV | 3.5.7                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Request   | 3.5.8                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Hop Count TLV | 3.5.8                       |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------



Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 19]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


       Path Vect TLV | 3.5.8                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Withdraw  | 3.5.10                      |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Label TLV     | 3.5.10                      |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Release   | 3.5.11                      |
     ----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
       Label TLV     | 3.5.11                      |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Abort Req | 3.5.9                       |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Vendor-Private  | 3.6.1.2                     |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Experimental    | 3.6.2                       |
   ==================+=============================+=========================
   LDP Status Codes  | 3.4.6
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Success         | 3.4.6, 3.9                  |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Bad LDP Id      | 3.5.1.2.1                   |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Bad Ptcl Version| 3.5.1.2.1                   |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Bad PDU Length  | 3.5.1.2.1                   |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Unknown Message | 3.5.1.2.1                   |
     Type            |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Bad Message     | 3.5.1.2.1                   |
     Length          |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Unknown TLV     | 3.5.1.2.2                   |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Bad TLV length  | 3.5.1.2.2                   |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Malformed TLV   | 3.5.1.2.2                   |
     Value           |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Hold Timer      | 3.5.1.2.3                   |
     Expired         |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Shutdown        | 3.5.1.2.4                   |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Loop Detected   | 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1          |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Unknown FEC     | 3.4.1.1                     |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------



Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 20]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


     No Route        | 3.5.8.1                     |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     No Label        | 3.5.8.1                     |
     Resources       |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Resources | 3.5.8.1                     |
     Available       |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3                |
     No Hello        |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3                |
     Parameters      |                             |
     Advert Mode     |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3                |
     Parameters      |                             |
     Max PDU Length  |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3                |
     Parameters      |                             |
     Label Range     |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     KeepAlive Timer | 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3            |
     Expired         |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Label Request   | 3.5.9.1                     |
     Aborted         |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Missing Message | 3.5.1.2.1                   |
     Parameters      |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Unsupported     | 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1            |
     Address Family  |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Session Rejected| 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3            |
     Bad KeepAlive   |                             |
     Time            |                             |
   ------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
     Internal Error  | 3.5.1.2.7                   |
   ==================+=============================+=========================










Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 21]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt      October 2005


Full 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.

   Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents
   except in the case where such document is the product of a joint
   development effort between the IETF and another standards development
   organization or the document is a republication of the work of
   another standards organization.  Such exceptions must be approved on
   an individual basis by the IAB.

   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.































Thomas & Andersson                                             [Page 22]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/