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

Versions: (draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-impl) 00 01 02 03 04

Inter-Domain Routing                                     H. Gredler, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            B. Rajagopalan
Intended status: Informational                                 C. Bowers
Expires: November 3, 2015                         Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                                  S. Ray
                                                                  Google
                                                             M. Bhardwaj
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             May 2, 2015


     BGP Link-State Information Distribution Implementation Report
                 draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-impl-04

Abstract

   This document is an implementation report for the BGP Link-State
   Information Distribution protocol.  The editors did not verify the
   accuracy of the information provided by respondents.  The respondents
   are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their
   responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for
   which their responses represent.  Respondents were asked to only use
   the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.

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 November 3, 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



Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


   (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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Implementation Forms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  NLRI subtypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Link NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Node NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Prefix NLRI TLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Cisco Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Juniper Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.3.  OpenDaylight Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.4.  Telecom Italia Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.5.  Netphony Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.6.  CTTC Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.7.  CNIT Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   In order to share network link-state and traffic engineering
   information collected with external components using the BGP routing
   protocol a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI)
   encoding format is required.

   This document provides an implementation report for the BGP Link-
   State Information Distribution NLRI Format as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].

   The scope of the interoperability test is sucessful encoding and
   decoding of BGP-LS advertisements.  No application specific logic has
   been verified.





Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


   The editors 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.  Respondents were asked to only use
   the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.

2.  Implementation Forms

   Contact and implementation information for person filling out this
   form:

   IOS-XR
      Name: Manish Bhardwaj
      Email:manbhard@cisco.com
      Vendor: Cisco Systems, Inc.
      Release: IOS-XR
      Protocol Role: Sender, Receiver, Originator

   JUNOS
      Name: Balaji Rajagopalan
      Email: balajir@juniper.net
      Vendor: Juniper Networks, Inc.
      Release: JUNOS
      Protocol Role: Sender, Receiver, Originator

   OpenDaylight
      Name: Dana Kutenicsova
      Email: dkutenic@cisco.com
      Vendor: OpenDaylight Project, Inc.
      Release: ODL Hydrogen
      Protocol Role: Receiver

   Telecom Italia
      Name: Roberto Morro
      Email: roberto.morro@telecomitalia.it
      Vendor: Telecom Italia, SpA
      Release: 5.0
      Protocol Role: Originator


   Netphony
      Name: Oscar Gonzalez
      Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
      Name: Victor Lopez
      Email: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com
      Company: Telefonica
      Release: 1.0.1



Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


      Protocol role: Sender, Receiver, Originator


   CTTC
      Name: Ramon Casellas
      Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
      Company: CTTC
      Release: 4.9 (PCE)
      Protocol role: Sender, Receiver, Originator


   CNIT
      Name: Francesco Paolucci
      Email: fr.paolucci@sssup.it
      Company: CNIT/Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna
      Release: IdealistPCE v1.0
      Protocol role: Originator, Sender


3.  NLRI subtypes

   Does the implementation support the Network Layer Reachability (NLRI)
   subtypes as described in Section 3.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?

   N1:  Node NLRI

   N2:  Link NLRI

   N3:  IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI

   N4:  IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI



















Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


       +--------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+
       |        | IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL |  TI | NPHY | CTTC | CNIT |
       +--------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+
       | Rcv.N1 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
       | Snd.N1 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
       | Org.N1 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
       | Rcv.N2 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
       | Snd.N2 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
       | Org.N2 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
       | Rcv.N3 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
       | Snd.N3 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
       | Org.N3 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
       | Rcv.N4 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
       | Snd.N4 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
       | Org.N4 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
       +--------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+

4.  Link NLRI TLV support

   Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of
   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?

   TLV 256:  Local Node Descriptor

   TLV 257:  Remote Node Descriptor

   TLV 258:  Link Local/Remote Identifier

   TLV 259:  IPv4 Interface address

   TLV 260:  IPv4 Neighbor address

   TLV 261:  IPv6 Interface address

   TLV 262:  IPv6 Neighbor address

   TLV 263:  Multi-Topology IDs

   TLV 512:  Autonomous System

   TLV 513:  BGP-LS Identifier

   TLV 514:  Area ID

   TLV 515:  IGP Router ID

   TLV 1028:  IPv4 router-ID of Local Node




Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


   TLV 1029:  IPv6 router-ID of Local Node

   TLV 1030:  IPv4 router-ID of Remote Node

   TLV 1031:  IPv6 router-ID of Remote Node

   TLV 1088:  Administrative group (color)

   TLV 1089:  Maximum link bandwidth

   TLV 1090:  Maximum reservable link bandwidth

   TLV 1091:  Unreserved link bandwidth

   TLV 1092:  TE default Metric

   TLV 1093:  Link Protection Type

   TLV 1094:  MPLS Protocol Mask

   TLV 1095:  IGP Metric

   TLV 1096:  Shared Risk Link Group

   TLV 1097:  Opaque Link attribute

   TLV 1098:  Link name attribute

    +---------------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+
    |               | IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL |  TI | NPHY | CTTC | CNIT |
    +---------------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+
    | Rcv.TLV  256  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  256  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  256  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  257  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  257  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  257  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  258  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  258  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  258  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  259  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  259  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  259  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  260  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  260  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  260  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  261  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  261  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |



Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


    | Org.TLV  261  |   NO   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  262  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  262  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  262  |   NO   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  263  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  263  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  263  |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  512  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  512  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  512  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  513  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  513  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  513  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  514  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  514  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  514  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  515  |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  515  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  515  |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1028 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1028 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  |  NO  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  1028 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1029 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1029 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1029 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1030 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1030 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  |  NO  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  1030 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1031 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1031 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1031 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1088 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1088 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1088 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES |  NO  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1089 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1089 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1089 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1090 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1090 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1090 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1091 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1091 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1091 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1092 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1092 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  1092 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1093 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1093 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |



Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


    | Org.TLV  1093 |   NO   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1094 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1094 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1094 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1095 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1095 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1095 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1096 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1096 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1096 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1097 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1097 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1097 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  1098 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  1098 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  1098 |   NO   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    +---------------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+

5.  Node NLRI TLV support

   Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of
   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?

   TLV 256:  Local Node Descriptor

   TLV 263:  Multi-Topology IDs

   TLV 512:  Autonomous System

   TLV 513:  BGP-LS Identifier

   TLV 514:  Area ID

   TLV 515:  IGP Router ID

   TLV 1024:  Node flag bits

   TLV 1025:  Opaque Node properties

   TLV 1026:  Node name

   TLV 1027:  IS-IS Area Identifier

   TLV 1028:  IPv4 router-ID of Local Node

   TLV 1029:  IPv6 router-ID of Local Node





Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


    +--------------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+
    |              | IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL |  TI | NPHY | CTTC | CNIT |
    +--------------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+
    | Rcv.TLV  256 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  256 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  256 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  263 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  263 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV  263 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV  512 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  512 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  512 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  513 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  513 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  513 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  514 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  514 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  514 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV  515 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO | YES  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV  515 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV  515 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV 1024 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV 1024 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV 1024 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV 1025 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV 1025 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV 1025 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV 1026 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV 1026 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV 1026 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV 1027 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV 1027 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV 1027 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Rcv.TLV 1028 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  | YES  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV 1028 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Org.TLV 1028 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | YES | YES  | YES  | YES  |
    | Rcv.TLV 1029 |  YES   |  YES  | YES |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Snd.TLV 1029 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    | Org.TLV 1029 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO |  NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
    +--------------+--------+-------+-----+-----+------+------+------+

6.  Prefix NLRI TLV support

   Does the implementation support the TLVs described in Section 7 of
   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] ?

   TLV 256:  Local Node Descriptor




Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


   TLV 263:  Multi-Topology IDs

   TLV 264:  OSPF route type

   TLV 265:  IP Reachability information

   TLV 1152:  IGP Flags

   TLV 1153:  Route Tag

   TLV 1154:  Extended Tag

   TLV 1155:  Prefix Metric

   TLV 1156:  OSPF Forwarding Address

   TLV 1157:  Opaque Prefix Attribute


































Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


     +--------------+--------+-------+-----+----+------+------+------+
     |              | IOS-XR | JUNOS | ODL | TI | NPHY | CTTC | CNIT |
     +--------------+--------+-------+-----+----+------+------+------+
     | Rcv.TLV  256 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV  256 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV  256 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV  263 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV  263 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV  263 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV  264 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV  264 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV  264 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV  265 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV  265 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV  265 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV 1152 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV 1152 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV 1152 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV 1153 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV 1153 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV 1153 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV 1154 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV 1154 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV 1154 |   NO   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV 1155 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV 1155 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV 1155 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV 1156 |  YES   |  YES  | YES | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV 1156 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV 1156 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Rcv.TLV 1157 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Snd.TLV 1157 |  YES   |  YES  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     | Org.TLV 1157 |  YES   |   NO  |  NO | NO |  NO  |  NO  |  NO  |
     +--------------+--------+-------+-----+----+------+------+------+

7.  Interoperable Implementations

   List other implementations that you have tested interoperability of
   BGP-LS Protocol Implementation.

7.1.  Cisco Implementation

   Cisco: The Cisco Systems, Inc. IOS-XR implementation should be
   interoperable with other vendor BGP-LS Protocol implementations.  In
   particular, we have tested our interoperability with Juniper's JUNOS
   implementation.





Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


7.2.  Juniper Implementation

   Juniper: The Juniper Networks, Inc. JUNOS implementation should be
   interoperable with other vendor BGP-LS Protocol implementations.  In
   particular, we have tested our interoperability with the Cisco
   Systems, Inc. IOS-XR implementation and the Opendaylight
   implementation.

7.3.  OpenDaylight Implementation

   Opendaylight: The Opendaylight implementation should be interoperable
   with other vendor BGP-LS Protocol implementations.  In particular, we
   have tested our interoperability with Juniper's JUNOS implementation
   and the Cisco Systems, Inc. IOS-XR implementation.  BGP receiver is
   implemented in the OpenDaylight Hydrogen release.  BGP sender
   functionality is planned in the upcoming Helium release.

7.4.  Telecom Italia Implementation

   The Telecom Italia implementation has been developed in the context
   of the EU-funded project IDEALIST, aiming at studying flexible grid
   optical networks.  In this context, some extension have been defined
   to advertise Nominal Center Frequency (NCF) status.  It has been
   tested against the Telefonica Netphony implementation (only receiver
   role).  Telecom Italia implementation has been successfully tested
   also against OpenDayLight Hydrogen and Helium releases.

7.5.  Netphony Implementation

   Netphony is an open-source implementation of networking protocols.
   The encoding of BGP-LS is available at Github [1].  Netphony BGP-LS
   implementation is known to interoperate with Telecom Italia
   Implementation, CTTC Implementation and CNIT Implementation.

7.6.  CTTC Implementation

   The CTTC implementation is part of the CTTC-PCE software, which uses
   BGP-LS as a north bound interface to export the TED used to other
   entities, or as an interface to provide the TED on which the PCE
   operates on.  It has been developed in the context of the IDEALIST
   FP7 project.  It has been tested with Telefonica implementation, in a
   multi-partner control plane testbed that uses a hierarchical PCE to
   perform multi-domain path computation.  BGP-LS is used to export
   (abstracted or physical) domain TE information from the child PCE to
   the parent PCE.






Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


7.7.  CNIT Implementation

   The CNIT implementation is part of the GMPLS-PCE control plane
   software suitably extended to handle Flexgrid and advanced bandwidth-
   variable transponders.  The PCE includes a BGP-LS speaker module,
   developed in C++ and running on Linux, able to export TED topology,
   both in a static and dynamic fashion, triggered by PCEP
   notifications, update/report messages on LSP setup/teardown/modify/
   adaptation events.  Implementation includes updates of TE links,
   nodes and per-link nominal central frequencies utilization
   information.  The BGP-LS speaker has been evaluated and tested with
   Telefonica implementation in a child PCE configuration controlling a
   real Flexgrid data plane domain and exporting link state information
   to a parent PCE performing inter-domain end to end path computation.
   Development has been done in the context of the FP7 IDEALIST project.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: The IANA has requested that this section remain
   in the document upon publication as an RFC.  This note to the RFC
   Editor, however, may be removed.

9.  Security considerations

   No new security issues are introduced by the BGP Link-State
   Information Distribution Protocol defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi and Jan Medved for
   their contributions to this document.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
              Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
              Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
              Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10
              (work in progress), January 2015.







Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


11.2.  URIs

   [1] https://github.com/telefonicaid/netphony-network-protocols

Authors' Addresses

   Hannes Gredler (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: hannes@juniper.net


   Balaji Rajagopalan
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Electra, Exora Business Park, Marathahalli - Sarjapur Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560103
   India

   Email: balajir@juniper.net


   Chris Bowers
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: cbowers@juniper.net


   Saikat Ray
   Google
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: raysaikat@gmail.com











Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    BGP Link-State Implementation Report          May 2015


   Manish Bhardwaj
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170, West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: manbhard@cisco.com












































Gredler, et al.         Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 15]


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