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

Versions: 00

Individual Submission                                          G. Huston
Internet-Draft                                                     APNIC
Expires: March 24, 2006                               September 20, 2005


    BGP support for 4-Byte AS Numbers - Implementation Survey Report
                draft-huston-idr-as4bytes-survey-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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document provides a survey of BGP-4 4-Byte AS Number support
   implementations.


1.  Survey Summary

   This document provides a survey of BGP-4 4-Byte AS Number Support
   [ID.4ByteAS] implementations.  After a brief summary, each response
   is listed.  The editor, makes no claim as to the accuracy of the



Huston                   Expires March 24, 2006                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              4-Byte AS Report              September 2005


   information provided.


2.  Summary Forms

2.1.  Juniper Networks

   Organization: Juniper Networks

   Person filling out this form:
      Bruno Rijsman <brijsman@juniper.net>

   Implementation:
      JUNOSe 4-1-0 and later

   Does the implementation include all parts of the specification:
      Yes

   Are there parts of the specification that are unclear where the
   implementor had to exercise some judgement that may impact
   interoperability?
      *  It isn't clear what to do if the information in the old as-path
         is inconsistent with the information in the new as-path.
      *  There some places where AS numbers are used where it wasn't
         clear how to deal with 4-octet as-numbers (e.g. extended
         communities).
      *  It isn't spelled out that this capability cannot be dynamically
         negotiated.

   Has there been any interoperability testing?
      Yes; no problems were discovered.

      1.  NEW / OLD ineroperability testing with:
             Juniper ERX (older version which does not support draft)
             Juniper M/T/J
             Cisco 7500

      2.  NEW / NEW interoperability testing with:
             Juniper M/T/J
             Redback SmartEdge

      3.  Most deployed Juniper ERX routers run code which supports
          4-octet AS-numbers (and the feature is enabled by default).
          This provides some confidence that the draft does not cause
          interoperability problems.  Note however that the NEW_AS_PATH
          attribute is not generated unless the AS-path contains at
          least one AS-number greater than 65535 which is -as far as we
          know- not yet the case in the Internet today.



Huston                   Expires March 24, 2006                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              4-Byte AS Report              September 2005


   Has there been testing of the interface between this implementation
   and the 2-byte BGP implementation on the NEW (4-byte) to OLD (2byte)
   update path?
      Yes

   Has there been testing of the OLD (2-byte) to NEW (4-byte) path?
      Yes

   Have there been any issues noted with the mechanism to reconstruct
   the 4-byte AS path from the NEW_AS-PATH attribute and the 2-byte AS
   Path on an OLD -NEW BGP update session?
      It isn't clear what to do if the information in the old as-path is
      inconsistent with the information in the new as-path.

   Any other comments regarding the implementation
      Some older versions of Cisco IOS send an unsupported capability
      notification (instead of ignoring the capability) when they
      receive a capability advertisement which they don't recognize and
      which has non-empty data.  The 4-octet as-number capability is
      such a capability.  Our implementation recognizes this
      notification and stops automatically stops advertising the 4-octet
      as-numbers capability (and others) until the next hard clear on
      the BGP session.

2.2.  Redback

   Organization: Redback

   Person filling out this form:
      Albert Tian <tian@redback.com>

   Does the implementation include all parts of the specification:
      Yes

   Are there parts of the specification that are unclear where the
   implementor had to exercise some judgement that may impact
   interoperability?
      No.

   Has there been any interoperability testing?
      Yes

   Has there been testing of the interface between this implementation
   and the 2-byte BGP implementation on the NEW (4-byte) to OLD (2byte)
   update path?
      Yes (Cisco: 2-byte; Redback: 4 byte).

   Has there been testing of the OLD (2-byte) to NEW (4-byte) path?



Huston                   Expires March 24, 2006                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              4-Byte AS Report              September 2005


      Yes. (Cisco: 2-byte; Redback: 4-byte).

   Have there been any issues noted with the mechanism to reconstruct
   the 4-byte AS path from the NEW_AS-PATH attribute and the 2-byte AS
   Path on an OLD -NEW BGP update session?
      No

   Have there been any issues noted with the mechanism to reconstruct
   the 4-byte AS path from the NEW_AS-PATH attribute and the 2-byte AS
   Path on an OLD -> NEW BGP update session?
      No.

   Any other comments regarding the implementation
      No


3.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA considerations are noted in this document


4.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations are documented in [ID.4ByteAS].

5.  References

   [ID.4ByteAS]
              Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP support for four-octet AS
              number space", Work in progress, Internet
              Draft: draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-10.txt, July 2005.




















Huston                   Expires March 24, 2006                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              4-Byte AS Report              September 2005


Author's Address

   Geoff Huston
   Asia Pacific Network Information Centre

   Email: gih@apnic.net
   URI:   http://www.apnic.net












































Huston                   Expires March 24, 2006                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              4-Byte AS Report              September 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
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


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.




Huston                   Expires March 24, 2006                 [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/