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

Versions: (draft-retana-idr-add-paths-implementation) 00

Network Working Group                                          A. Retana
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                          February 2, 2015
Expires: August 6, 2015


     Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP: Implementation Report
               draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-implementation-00

Abstract

   This document reports the results of an ADD-PATH implementation
   survey.  The survey had 22 questions about implementations' support
   for advertising multiple paths in BGP.  After a brief summary of the
   results, each response is listed.  This document contains responses
   from six implementers who completed the survey.

   The editor did not use external means to verify the accuracy of the
   information submitted by the respondents.  The respondents are
   considered experts on the products they reported on.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Results of the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Overview of Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Implementation Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Implementations and Interoperability  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Implementation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Section 2: How to Identify a Path . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.1.  Base Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.2.  Path Identifier Assignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.3.  Path Identifier Assignment (2)  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.4.  Route Re-advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.1.5.  Received Path Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Section 3: Extended NLRI Encodings  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.1.  Base Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Section 4: ADD-PATH Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  Base Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Section 5: Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.1.  Base Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.2.  Implicit Replacement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.3.  Silently Ignore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.4.  Send/Receive Logic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.4.5.  Update Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.4.6.  Update Generation with Encoding . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.7.  Multiple Address Family Support . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.8.  Multiple Address Family Support (2) . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.9.  Bestpath  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.10. Path Identifier Persistency . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.4.11. Graceful Restart  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.5.  Section 6: Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.5.1.  Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.6.  Section 7: Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.6.1.  Deployment Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16




Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


1.  Introduction

   This document reports results from a survey of implementations of the
   Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths],
   where a BGP [RFC4271] extension that allows the advertisement of
   multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths
   implicitly replacing any previous ones is defined.  The essence of
   the extension is that each path is identified by a path identifier in
   addition to the address prefix.

   The ADD-PATH implementation survey had 22 detailed questions about
   compliance with [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths].  Six implementers (Cumulus
   Networks, Cisco Systems, Exa Networks, Juniper Networks, Alcatel-
   Lucent and CZ.NIC) completed the survey.  Section 3.1 provides an
   overview of the differences between the implementations.  Section 4
   provides a compilation of the results.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Results of the Survey

   The respondents replied "Yes" or "No" to the survey's questions to
   indicate whether their implementation supports the Functionality/
   Description of the [RFC2119] language in [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths].
   The respondents replied "Other" to indicate an alternate behavior and
   had the opportunity to provide comments in all cases.  Some questions
   were informative.

3.1.  Overview of Differences

   This section provides the reader with a shortcut to the points where
   the implementations differ.

   Two of the implementations work only in receive-mode; they don't
   implement any advertisement of routes.  Obviously, those
   implementations are not compliant with the sections related to the
   advertisement of routes.  Taking that fact into account, all the
   responders had consistent and compliant answers to all the sections
   of the survey.








Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


3.2.  Implementation Identification

   3.3.1.  Cumulus

   Company/Organization Name: Cumulus Networks

   Implementation Name/Version: quagga

   Date: 11/3/2014

   Contact Name: Daniel Walton

   Contact e-mail: dwalton@cumulusnetworks.com

   3.3.2.  Cisco

   Company/Organization Name: Cisco Systems

   Implementation Name/Version: IOS-XE

   Date: 11/03/2014

   Contact Name: Mohammed Mirza

   Contact e-mail: mohamirz@cisco.com

   3.3.3.  Exa

   Company/Organization Name: Exa Networks

   Implementation Name/Version: ExaBGP

   Date: 01/11/2014

   Contact Name: Thomas Mangin

   Contact e-mail: thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk

   3.3.4.  Juniper

   Company/Organization Name: Juniper Networks

   Implementation Name/Version: JUNOS 11.3 and later

   Date: August 2011

   Contact Name: Jeff Haas




Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   Contact e-mail: jhaas@juniper.net

   3.3.5.  ALU

   Company/Organization Name: Alcatel-Lucent

   Implementation Name/Version: SROS

   Date: 11/10/2014

   Contact Name: Adam Simpson

   Contact e-mail: adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com

   3.3.6.  CZ.NIC

   Company/Organization Name: CZ.NIC

   Implementation Name/Version: BIRD

   Date: 2014-11-12

   Contact Name: Ondrej Zajicek

   Contact e-mail: santiago@crfreenet.org

3.3.  Implementations and Interoperability

       +---------+---------+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+
       |         | Cumulus | Cisco | Exa | Juniper | ALU | CZ.NIC |
       | Cumulus |         | Yes   |     |         |     | Yes    |
       | Cisco   |         | Yes   |     |         |     |        |
       | Exa     |         | Yes   |     |         |     |        |
       | Juniper |         |       |     |         |     |        |
       | ALU     |         | Yes   |     |         |     |        |
       | CZ.NIC  |         |       |     |         |     |        |
       +---------+---------+-------+-----+---------+-----+--------+

4.  Implementation Report

   For every item listed, the respondents indicated whether their
   implementation supports the Functionality/Description or not (Yes/No)
   according to the [RFC2119] language indicated.  Any comments are
   included.  If appropriate, the respondents indicated with "Other" the
   fact that the support is neither Yes/No (an alternate behavior, for
   example).  Refer to the appropriate sections in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] for additional details.




Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


4.1.  Section 2: How to Identify a Path

4.1.1.  Base Behavior

   Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the
   use of the Path Identifier as described in this section?

   [RFC2119]: N/A

                   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
                   -------------- ------------ --------
                   Cumulus        Yes
                   Cisco          Yes
                   Exa            Yes
                   Juniper        Yes
                   ALU            Yes
                   CZ.NIC         Yes

4.1.2.  Path Identifier Assignment

   Functionality/Description: Explain how Path Identifiers are assigned
   in your implementation.

   [RFC2119]: N/A

   Implementation Comments
   -------------- ------------------------------------------------------
   Cumulus        quagga is RX only for now so this is not an issue
   Cisco          Each net has unique path-id per paths under it. The
                  path ids that are withdrawn can get assigned to the
                  newer paths.
   Exa            By the user
   Juniper        Incrementally assign an id based on the N+1 of the
                  max(N) of the path ids already assigned.
   ALU            Path IDs are per address family. Every new advertised
                  path uses the next available path ID (in sequential
                  order) for the address family.
   CZ.NIC         Each route source (like add_path-unaware BGP peer) has
                  allocated fixed path id.

4.1.3.  Path Identifier Assignment (2)

   Functionality/Description: "...the Path Identifier MUST be assigned
   in such a way that the BGP speaker is able to use the (prefix, path
   identifier) to uniquely identify a path advertised to a neighbor."

   Can your implementation uniquely identify an advertised path based on
   the (prefix, path identifier) pair?



Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   [RFC2119]: MUST

   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
   -------------- ------------ -----------------------------------------
   Cumulus        Yes
   Cisco          Yes
   Exa            Other        This is left to the user of the
                               application to do.
   Juniper        Yes
   ALU            Yes
   CZ.NIC         Yes

4.1.4.  Route Re-advertisement

   Functionality/Description: "A BGP speaker that re-advertises a route
   MUST generate its own Path Identifier to be associated with the re-
   advertised route."

   Does your implementation generate a new Path Identifier when re-
   advertising a route?

   [RFC2119]: MUST

   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
   -------------- ------------ -----------------------------------------
   Cumulus        Other        Comments quagga does not support TX yet
   Cisco          Yes
   Exa            Other        ExaBGP does not re-advertise routes
   Juniper        Yes
   ALU            Yes
   CZ.NIC         Other        New path_id is allocated for each unique
                               path_id received through add_path-aware
                               BGP session.

4.1.5.  Received Path Identifier

   Functionality/Description: "A BGP speaker that receives a route
   SHOULD NOT assume that the identifier carries any particular
   semantics; it SHOULD be treated as an opaque value."

   Does your implementation treat a received Path Identifier as an
   opaque value?

   [RFC2119]: SHOULD NOT







Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


                   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
                   -------------- ------------ --------
                   Cumulus        Yes
                   Cisco          Yes
                   Exa            Yes
                   Juniper        Yes
                   ALU            Yes
                   CZ.NIC         Yes

4.2.  Section 3: Extended NLRI Encodings

4.2.1.  Base Behavior

   Functionality/Description: Does your implementation use the encodings
   specified in this section?

   [RFC2119]: N/A

                   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
                   -------------- ------------ --------
                   Cumulus        Yes
                   Cisco          Yes
                   Exa            Yes
                   Juniper        Yes
                   ALU            Yes
                   CZ.NIC         Yes

4.3.  Section 4: ADD-PATH Capability

4.3.1.  Base Behavior

   Functionality/Description: Is your implementation able to send and
   receive the ADD-PATH Capability as described in this section?

   [RFC2119]: N/A

                   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
                   -------------- ------------ --------
                   Cumulus        Yes
                   Cisco          Yes
                   Exa            Yes
                   Juniper        Yes
                   ALU            Yes
                   CZ.NIC         Yes







Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


4.4.  Section 5: Operation

4.4.1.  Base Behavior

   Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the
   operation described in this section?

   [RFC2119]: N/A

          Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
          -------------- ------------ --------------------------
          Cumulus        Other        RX yes, TX not implemented
          Cisco          Yes
          Exa            Yes
          Juniper        Yes
          ALU            Yes
          CZ.NIC         Yes

4.4.2.  Implicit Replacement

   Functionality/Description: "...a new advertisement for a given
   address prefix and a given path identifier replaces a previous
   advertisement for the same address prefix and path identifier."

   Does your implementation replace previous advertisements with the
   same (prefix, path identifier) pair?

   [RFC2119]: N/A

        Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
        -------------- ------------ -------------------------------
        Cumulus        Yes
        Cisco          Yes
        Exa            Other        ExaBGP does not implement a FIB
        Juniper        Yes
        ALU            Yes
        CZ.NIC         Yes

4.4.3.  Silently Ignore

   Functionality/Description: "If a BGP speaker receives a message to
   withdraw a prefix with a path identifier not seen before, it SHOULD
   silently ignore it."

   Does your implementation silently ignore the withdraw of a prefix
   with a new path identifier?

   [RFC2119]: SHOULD



Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
   -------------- ------------ -----------------------------------------
   Cumulus
   Cisco          Yes
   Exa            Other        ExaBGP is a "BGP engine", it only convert
                               BGP packet to some JSON that another
                               application can consume ( and vice-versa
                               ).
   Juniper        Yes
   ALU            Yes
   CZ.NIC

4.4.4.  Send/Receive Logic

   Functionality/Description: "For a BGP speaker to be able to send
   multiple paths to its peer, that BGP speaker MUST advertise the ADD-
   PATH capability with the Send/Receive field set to either 2 or 3, and
   MUST receive from its peer the ADD-PATH capability with the Send/
   Receive field set to either 1 or 3, for the corresponding <AFI,
   SAFI>."

   Does your implementation follow the send/receive logic as specified
   in this section?

   [RFC2119]: MUST

                   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
                   -------------- ------------ --------
                   Cumulus        Yes
                   Cisco          Yes
                   Exa            Yes
                   Juniper        Yes
                   ALU            Yes
                   CZ.NIC         Yes

4.4.5.  Update Procedure

   Functionality/Description: "A BGP speaker MUST follow the existing
   procedures in generating an UPDATE message for a particular <AFI,
   SAFI> to a peer unless the BGP speaker advertises the ADD-PATH
   Capability to the peer indicating its ability to send multiple paths
   for the <AFI, SAFI>, and also receives the ADD-PATH Capability from
   the peer indicating its ability to receive multiple paths for the
   <AFI, SAFI>..."

   Does your implementation follow normal procedures when generating
   UPDATES if the ADD-PATH capability is not sent and received?




Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   [RFC2119]: MUST

                   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
                   -------------- ------------ --------
                   Cumulus        Yes
                   Cisco          Yes
                   Exa            Yes
                   Juniper        Yes
                   ALU            Yes
                   CZ.NIC         Yes

4.4.6.  Update Generation with Encoding

   Functionality/Description: "...in which case the speaker MUST
   generate a route update for the <AFI, SAFI> based on the combination
   of the address prefix and the Path Identifier, and use the extended
   NLRI encodings specified in this document."

   If the ADD-PATH capability has been sent and received, does your
   implementation generate new UPDATEs using the (prefix, path
   identifier) pair and the encodings defined in this document?

   [RFC2119]: MUST

            Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
            -------------- ------------ -----------------------
            Cumulus        Other        TX is not supported yet
            Cisco          Yes
            Exa            Yes
            Juniper        Yes
            ALU            Yes
            CZ.NIC         Yes

4.4.7.  Multiple Address Family Support

   Functionality/Description: "The peer SHALL act accordingly in
   processing an UPDATE message related to a particular <AFI, SAFI>."

   Does your implementation support the use of the ADD-PATH capability
   for multiple <AFI, SAFI> pairs?

   [RFC2119]: SHALL









Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
   -------------- ------------ -----------------------------------------
   Cumulus        Yes
   Cisco          Yes
   Exa            Yes
   Juniper        Yes
   ALU            Yes
   CZ.NIC         Other        BIRD currently does not support multiple
                               pairs in one connection, separate
                               connection is used for IPv4 and IPv6
                               (unicast).

4.4.8.  Multiple Address Family Support (2)

   Functionality/Description: Which <AFI, SAFI> pairs does your
   implementation support when using the ADD-PATH capability?

   [RFC2119]: N/A

   Implementation Comments
   -------------- ------------------------------------------------------
   Cumulus        IPv4 unicast and IPv6 unicast
   Cisco          ipv4 unicast and ipv6 unicast
   Exa            1/1 2/1 1/4 2/4
   Juniper        IPv4 Unicast, IPv6 Unicast, IPv4 Labeled Unicast, IPv6
                  Labeled Unicast
   ALU            1/1, 1/4, 1/128, 2/1, 2/4, 2/128
   CZ.NIC         IPv4 unicast and IPv6 unicast

4.4.9.  Bestpath

   Functionality/Description: "A BGP speaker SHOULD include the bestpath
   when more than one path are advertised to a neighbor unless the
   bestpath is a path received from that neighbor."

   Does your implementation include the bestpath when multiple paths are
   announced to a neighbor, as described?

   [RFC2119]: SHOULD












Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
   -------------- ------------ -----------------------------------------
   Cumulus        Yes
   Cisco          Yes
   Exa            Other        ExaBGP does not have a FIB, this is user
                               controlled.
   Juniper        Yes
   ALU            Yes
   CZ.NIC         Yes

4.4.10.  Path Identifier Persistency

   Functionality/Description: "As the Path Identifiers are locally
   assigned, and may or may not be persistent across a control plane
   restart of a BGP speaker..."

   Are the path identifiers persistent across control plane restarts in
   your implementation?

   [RFC2119]: N/A

   Implementation Yes/No/Other Comments
   -------------- ------------ -----------------------------------------
   Cumulus        No
   Cisco          No           XE-BGP-ADD-Paths need to have HA
                               enhancements
   Exa            Other        User controlled
   Juniper        Other        In the case of the BGP graceful restart
                               feature, path IDs are not persistent. In
                               the case of the JUNOS Non-stop Routing
                               feature, they persist.
   ALU            No           With high availability (HA) the path IDs
                               are persistent if there is still one
                               remaining control card after
                               reset/failure of the other control card.
   CZ.NIC         No

4.4.11.  Graceful Restart

   Functionality/Description: "...an implementation SHOULD take special
   care so that the underlying forwarding plane of a "Receiving Speaker"
   as described in [RFC4724] is not affected during the graceful restart
   of a BGP session."

   Please explain how your implementation addresses Graceful Restart.

   [RFC2119]: SHOULD




Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


   Implementation Comments
   -------------- ------------------------------------------------------
   Cumulus        Quagga has partial GR support (it is GR aware for
                  other restarting nodes) but does not maintain the
                  forwarding plane during a restart.
   Cisco          XE-BGP-ADD-Paths need to have HA enhancements
   Exa            No FIB, not relevant
   Juniper        During BGP graceful restart procedures, the receiving
                  speaker ignores the path-id for purposes of
                  identifying a matching route.  Once a refreshed route
                  has been correlated to a previous path, the path-id is
                  updated.
   ALU            Graceful restart is supported for the receiving router
                  role so by definition graceful restart does not affect
                  the forwarding plane.
   CZ.NIC         FIB is not modified until initial graceful restart
                  phase is finished.

4.5.  Section 6: Applications

4.5.1.  Applications

   Functionality/Description: Please list or explain which applications
   that require the propagation of multiple paths are supported by your
   implementation.

   [RFC2119]: N/A

   Implementation Comments
   -------------- ------------------------------------------------------
   Cumulus        None yet....RX onlys
   Cisco          1. RR client to RR use cases for ipv4 and ipv6. 2. RR
                  to RR clients(could be ASBRs) use cases for ipv4 and
                  ipv6.
   Exa            N/A
   Juniper        Persistent route flap damping suppression.
                  Distribution of additional destinations or BGP
                  nexthops for multi-path purposes.
   ALU            Add-Paths ion IBGP sessions allows for better load-
                  sharing (more ECMP paths), advertisement of potential
                  backup paths, reduced routing churn.
   CZ.NIC         (iBGP) route reflector / RR client, (eBGP) route
                  server / RS client, use cases where paths are
                  distributed for other purposes than filling FIBs (like
                  topology-aware CDNs).






Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


4.6.  Section 7: Deployment Considerations

4.6.1.  Deployment Experience

   Functionality/Description: Please comment on deployment experience
   with your implementation.

   [RFC2119]: N/A

   Implementation Comments
   -------------- ------------------------------------------------------
   Cumulus
   Cisco
   Exa            Cisco routers exporting ADD-PATH routes to ExaBGP,
                  routes are then stored in a distributed Database. A
                  complex best path selection (including latency) is
                  performed on the stored routes, and the best routes
                  are then re-injected in the core via ExaBGP.
   Juniper
   ALU
   CZ.NIC

5.  Security Considerations

   This document reports the results of an ADD-PATH implementation
   survey.  As such, it does not iintroduce any security risks.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The editor would like to thank Daniel Walton, Mohammed Mirza, Thomas
   Mangin, Jeff Haas, Adam Simpson and Ondrej Zajicek.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
              Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
              "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
              add-paths-10 (work in progress), October 2014.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.




Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       ADD-PATH Implementation Report        February 2015


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

Author's Address

   Alvaro Retana
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   USA

   Email: aretana@cisco.com





































Retana                   Expires August 6, 2015                [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/