Interdomain Working Group Internet Draft S. Hares Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02.txt NextHop A. Retana Cisco Expires: April 2005 October 2004 BGP 4 Implementation Report Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, we certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which we become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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" Abstract This document provides a survey of the BGP-4 implementation draft- ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editors created the draft based on the input given by those contributors responding to the survey. The editors did not verify the accuracy of the information submitted by contributor by an exterior means. The contributors are experts with the products they reported on. Conventions used in this document Hares & Retana Expires รป April 2005 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 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 RFC-2119 [i]. TABLE of CONTENTS 1. Introduction...................................................3 2. Results of Survey..............................................4 2.1 Differences................................................5 2.2 Implementations and interoperability.......................6 2.3 BGP Implementation Identification..........................7 3. BGP4 Implementation Report.....................................7 3.0 Summary of Operation / Section 3...........................7 3.1 Routes: Advertisement and Storage / Section 3.1............8 3.2 Routing Information Bases / Section 3.2....................9 3.3 Message Formats / Section 4................................9 3.4 Message Header Format / Section 4.1........................9 3.5 OPEN Message / Section 4.2................................11 3.6 UPDATE Message Format / Section 4.3.......................11 3.7 KEEPALIVE Message Format / Section 4.4....................15 3.8 NOTIFICATION Message Format / Section 4.5.................15 3.9 Path Attributes /Section 5................................16 3.10 ORIGIN / Section 5.1.1...................................19 3.11 AS_PATH / Section 5.1.2..................................20 3.12 NEXT_HOP / Section 5.1.3.................................21 3.13 MULTI_EXIT_DISC / Section 5.1.4..........................24 3.14 LOCAL_PREF / Section 5.1.5...............................26 3.15 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE / Section 5.1.6.........................28 3.16 AGGREGATOR / Section 5.1.7...............................29 3.17 BGP Error Handling / Section 6...........................30 3.18 Message Header Error Handling / Section 6.1..............30 3.19 OPEN message error handling / Section 6.2................32 3.20 UPDATE message error handling / Section 6.3..............35 3.21 NOTIFICATION message error handling / Section 6.4........44 3.22 Hold Timer Expired error handling / Section 6.5..........44 3.23 Finite State Machine error handling / Section 6.6........45 3.24 Cease / Section 6.7......................................45 3.25 BGP connection collision detection / Section 6.8.........46 3.26 BGP Version Negotiation / Section 7......................47 3.27 BGP Finite State machine (FSM) / Section 8...............48 3.28 Administrative Events / Section 8.1.2....................48 3.29 Timer Events / Section 8.1.3.............................53 3.30 TCP Connection based Events / Section 8.1.4..............55 3.31 BGP Messages based Events / Seciton 8.1.5................56 3.32 FSM Definition / Section 8.2.1...........................57 3.33 FSM and collision detection / Section 8.2.1.2............58 3.34 FSM Event numbers / Section 8.2.1.4......................58 3.35 Finite State Machine / Section 8.2.2.....................59 Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.36 UPDATE Message Handling / Section 9......................59 3.37 Decision Process / Section 9.1...........................61 3.38 Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference / Section 9.1.1 ..............................................................62 3.39 Phase 2: Route Selection / Section 9.1.2.................62 3.40 Route Resolvability Condition / Section 9.1.2.1..........64 3.41 Breaking Ties (Phase 2) / Section 9.1.2.2................65 3.42 Phase 3: Route Dissemination / Section 9.1.3.............66 3.43 Overlapping Routes / Section 9.1.4.......................67 3.44 Update-Send Process / Section 9.2........................69 3.45 Frequency of Route Advertisement / Section 9.2.1.1.......71 3.46 Aggregating Routing Information / Section 9.2.2.2........72 3.47 Route Selection Criteria / Section 9.3...................76 3.48 Originating BGP routes / Section 9.4.....................77 3.49 BGP Timers / Section 10..................................77 3.50 TCP options that may be used with BGP / Appendix E.......80 3.51 Reducing route flapping / Appendix F.2...................80 3.52 Complex AS_PATH aggregation / Appendix F.6...............81 3.53 Security Considerations..................................81 4. Additional BGP implementations Information....................81 4.1 Avici.....................................................81 4.2 Data Connection Ltd.......................................82 4.3 Nokia.....................................................83 Security Considerations..........................................8 4 Normative References.............................................84 Acknowledgments..................................................85 Authors' Addresses...............................................85 Intellectual Property Statement..................................85 Copyright Statement..............................................86 1. Introduction This document surveys implementations of BGP based on [BGP4]/RFCxxx. RFCxxxx updates the BGP standard [RFC1771] to be in alignment with the deployments of the BGP-4 protocols. BGP-4 as deployed in the Internet encompasses both this base specification and additional specifications such as TCP MD5 [RFC2385], BGP Route Reflectors [RFC 2796], BGP Confederations [RFC3065], and BGP Route Refresh [RFC 2918]. BGP as a widely deployed cornerstone of Internet technology continues to add additional functionality as the needs within the Internet requires. This survey has 259 detailed questions on the compliance with the revised standard. 4 implementers (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel, NextHop) sent in implementation reports. Section 3 provides a compilation of those results. Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Section 2.1 provides an overview of the differences of between those implementations. Section 2.2 provides an inter-operability of the 4 implementations. Due to the large number of BGP implementations and the small number of responses, the editors took an informal survey to determine if the length of survey was an issue. Three implementers responded, and all indicated the length of the survey was the issue. Section 3 gives this informal survey results. The editors have compiled the submitted survey results and the informal survey results based on the submitted information. 2. Results of Survey Significant Differences For every item listed (259 questions), the respondents indicated whether their implementation supports the Functionality/Description or not (Y/N) indicated by the RFC2199 [RFC2119] language. Of the 259 questions in the survey, had two implementations giving an affirmative response (two "y" or "y" and "O") except the following: a) Must - Linked questions 212/213, regarding section 9.1.4 The linking of the questions lead to question 213 having three vendors (Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop) give a "no" as the second half of a question due to the format of the survey question. (See the next section for details). b) SHALL NOT - Question 228, regarding section 9.2.2.2 Three vendors (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel), answered "N" to shall not (meaning they did). One vendor (NextHop) indicated "O" matching the specification. Text: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated. c) SHOULD - 2 in appendix F (questions 257, 258) Three vendors said no, one vendor said yes to question 257. All four vendors indicated no to question 258. (Please note that Appendix F is text section for optional support. Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Text: Section F.2 - A BGP speaker which needs to withdraw a destination and send an update about a more specific or less specific route SHOULD combine them into the same UPDATE message. Text: Section F.6: The last instance (rightmost occurrence) of that AS number is kept. d) MAY - 1 in section 8.1.2.4, 1 in Section 10 (question 254) Section 8: 3 "No", 1 yes Text: "The Event numbers (1-28) utilized in this state machine description aid in specifying the behavior of the BGP state machine. Implementations MAY use these numbers to provide network management information. The exact form of a FSM or the FSM events are specific to each implementation." Editors note: Section 8.1.2.4 was written to allow existing implementations to transition to the new event numbering. It was expected over time (3 years) that the FSM event numbering would be updated to the new numbering. Section 10: 3 "no" Three vendors answered "no" configurable jitter time values. One vendor indicated a configurable jitter timer value. Text: A given BGP speaker MAY apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per peer" basis. Question: Is the jitter range configurable? 2.1 Differences The following section provides a list of sections where all answers were not "yes". This section is provided to allow the reader a short cut to the interesting points. Differences are found in Subsections: Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 MUST 97, 106, 107, 111, 122, 125, 138, 141, 213 SHALL 233, 239 SHALL NOT 228 SHOULD 42, 117, 132, 146, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 202, 225, 250, 255, 256 SHOULD NOT 226 MAY 67, 94, 121, 143, 180, 223, 247, 254 Other 236, 238 Linked Questions 212/213 Question 213 about the aggregation of routes had 3 "N" and 1 "Y". Questions 212 and 213 are grouped together. Question 212 states: "The decision process MUST either install both routes" or Question 213: "Aggregate the two routes and install the aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same value of the NEXT_HOP attribute" The four respondents that said "Y" to question 212, said "N" to questions 213. Given the context of the question, the "N" to question 213 is appropriate. 2.2 Implementations and interoperability Alcatel Cisco Laurel NextHop Alcatel Y Y Cisco Y Laurel Y Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y Y 2.3 BGP Implementation Identification 1.6.0 Alcatel Implementation Name/Version: Alcatel 7750 BGP Implementation Release 1.3 Date: July 2003 Contact Name: Devendra Raut Contact Email: Devendra.raut@Alcatel.com 1.6.1 Cisco Implementation Name/Version: Cisco BGP Implementation, 12.0(27)S Contact Name: Alvaro Retana Date: 11/26/2003 1.6.2 Laurel Implementation Name/Version: Laurel Networks 3.0 Contact Name: Man ish Vora Contact Email: vora@laurelnetworks.com Date: 2/1/2004 1.6.3 NextHop Technologies Implementation Name/Version: Gated NGC 2.0, 2.2 Date: January 2004 3. BGP4 Implementation Report For every item listed, the respondents indicated whether their implementation supports the Functionality/Description or not (Y/N) according to the RFC2119 [ii] language indicated. Any respondent comments are included. If appropriate, the respondents indicated with O the fact that the support is neither Y/N (an alternate behavior, for example). Refer to the appropriate sections in [BGP4] for additional details. 3.0 Summary of Operation / Section 3 3.0.1 Base Behavior Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the base behavior described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.0.2 Local Policy Changes Functionality/Description: To allow local policy changes to have the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension [RFC2918] RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.1 Routes: Advertisement and Storage / Section 3.1 3.1.3 Withdraw routes from service Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the three methods described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.1.4 Path attributes Functionality/Description: Added to or modified before advertising the route RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.2 Routing Information Bases / Section 3.2 3.2.5 Routing Information Bases Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the RIB structure described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.2.6 Next Hop Resolution Functionality/Description: The next hop for each route in the Loc-RIB MUST be resolvable via the local BGP speaker's Routing Table RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.3 Message Formats / Section 4 3.3.7 Message Size Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the message sizes described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.4 Message Header Format / Section 4.1 Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.4.8 Marker Functionality/Description: MUST be set to all ones RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.4.9 Length Functionality/Description: MUST always be at least 19 and no greater than 4096 RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.4.10 Length Functionality/Description: MAY be further constrained, depending on the message type RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.4.11 Message "padding" Functionality/Description: No "padding" of extra data after the message is allowed, so the Length field MUST have the smallest value required given the rest of the message RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.5 OPEN Message / Section 4.2 3.5.12 Hold Timer Calculation Functionality/Description: Use the smaller of its configured Hold Time and the Hold Time received in the OPEN message RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.5.13 Minimum Hold Time Functionality/Description: MUST be either zero or at least three seconds RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.5.14 Connection Rejection Functionality/Description: Based on the Hold Time RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Sends notification. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6 UPDATE Message Format / Section 4.3 3.6.15 UPDATE Functionality/Description: Simultaneously advertise a feasible route and withdraw multiple unfeasible routes from service Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We have capability to process this functionality on receiving end but we don't send feasible & unfeasible simultaneously. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.16 Transitive Bit Setting Functionality/Description: For well-known attributes, the Transitive bit MUST be set to 1 RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.17 Partial Bit Setting Functionality/Description: For well-known attributes and for optional non-transitive attributes the Partial bit MUST be set to 0 RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/C omments: Y 3.6.18 Attribute Flags octet sending Functionality/Description: Lower-order four bits set to zero RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.6.19 Attribute Flags octet receiving Functionality/Description: Lower-order four bits ignored RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.20 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: Used as the next hop to the destinations listed in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.21 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Functionality/Description: Used by a BGP speaker's decision process to discriminate among multiple entry points to a neighboring autonomous system RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.22 AGGREGATOR IP Address Functionality/Description: Same address as the one used for the BGP Identifier of the speaker RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default behavior. Can be configured Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 different from BGP ID. Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.23 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields Functionality/Description: UPDATE messages SHOULD NOT include that information RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.24 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields Functionality/Description: The BGP speaker MUST be able to handle them RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.6.25 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields Functionality/Description: Treated as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES doesn't contain the address prefix RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Withdrawn routes are processed before NLRI fields. Hence we get the desired behavior. Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.7 KEEPALIVE Message Format / Section 4.4 3.7.26 Maximum KEEPALIVE frequency Functionality/Description: Not greater than one second RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.7.27 KEEPALIVE messages rate Functionality/Description: Adjusted as a function of the Hold Time interval RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.7.28 Negotiated Hold Time of 0 Functionality/Description: No KEEPALIVEs sent RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.8 NOTIFICATION Message Format / Section 4.5 3.8.29 NOTIFICATION Message Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the NOTIFICATION Message as described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9 Path Attributes /Section 5 3.9.30 Path attributes Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the path attributes as described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.31 Well-known attributes Functionality/Description: Recognized by all BGP implementations RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.32 Mandatory Attributes Functionality/Description: Included in every UPDATE message that contains NLRI RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.33/34 Discretionary Attributes Functionality/Description: Sent in a particular UPDATE message Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 16]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: MAY or MAY NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.35 Well-known attributes Functionality/Description: Passed along (after proper updating, if necessary) to other BGP peers RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.36 Optional Attributes Functionality/Description: In addition to well-known attributes, each path MAY contain one or more optional attributes RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.37 Unrecognized transitive optional attributes Functionality/Description: Accepted RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.38 Partial Bit for unrecognized transitive optional attributes Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 17]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Functionality/Description: Set to 1 if the attribute is accepted and pa ssed to other BGP speakers RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.39 Unrecognized non-transitive optional attributes Functionality/Description: Quietly ignored and not passed along to other BGP peers RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.40 New transitive optional attributes Functionality/Description: Attached to the path by the originator or by any other BGP speaker in the path RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.41 Optional Attributes Functionality/Description: Updated by BGP speakers in the path RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 18]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.9.42 Path Attributes Functionality/Description: Ordered in ascending order of attribute type RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O All attributes are ordered in ascending order except Extended Community, which is type 16 but we send it out after community attribute. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y except for MBGP which is always last NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.43 Out of order received path attributes Functionality/Description: Receiver MUST be able to handle RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.9.44 Mandatory Attributes Functionality/Description: Present in all exchanges if NLRI are contained in the UPDATE message RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.10 ORIGIN / Section 5.1.1 3.10.45 ORIGIN Functionality/Description: Value SHOULD NOT be changed by any speaker, except the originator Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 19]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.11 AS_PATH / Section 5.1.2 3.11.46 AS_PATH Functionality/Description: Not modified when advertising a route to an internal peer RFC2119: SHALL NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.11.47 Segment Overflow Functionality/Description: If the act of prepending will cause an overflow in the AS_PATH segment, i.e. more than 255 ASs, it SHOULD prepend a new segment of type AS_SEQUENCE and prepend its own AS number to this new segment RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.11.48 Prepending Functionality/Description: The local system MAY include/prepend more than one instance of its own AS number in the AS_PATH attribute RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 20]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12 NEXT_HOP / Section 5.1.3 3.12.49 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: Used as the next hop to the destinations listed in the UPDATE message RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.50 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is not locally originated, the BGP speaker SHOULD NOT modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.51 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: When announcing a locally originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker SHOULD use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 21]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.12.52 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: If the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker SHOULD use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer) RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.53 "first party" NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: If the external peer to which the route is being advertised shares a common subnet with one of the interfaces of the announcing BGP speaker, the speaker MAY use the IP address associated with such an interface in the NEXT_HOP attribute RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.54 Default NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: IP address of the interface that the speaker uses to establish the BGP connection to peer X RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.55 NEXT_HOP Propagation Functionality/Description: The speaker MAY be configured to Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 22]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 propagate the NEXT_HOP attribute. In this case when advertising a route that the speaker learned from one of its peers, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the advertised route is exactly th e same as the NEXT_HOP attribute of the learned route (the speaker just doesn't modify the NEXT_HOP attribute) RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.56 Third party NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: MUST be able to support disabling it RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.57 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: A route originated by a BGP speaker SHALL NOT be advertised to a peer using an address of that peer as NEXT_HOP RFC2119: SHALL NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.58 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker SHALL NOT install a route with itself as the next hop RFC2119: SHALL NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 23]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.59 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: Used to determine the actual outbound interface and immediate next-hop address that SHOULD be used to forward transit packets to the associated destinations RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.60 Resolved NEXT_HOP IP Address Functionality/Description: If the entry specifies an attached subnet, but does not specify a next-hop address, then the address in the NEXT_HOP attribute SHOULD be used as the immediate next-hop address RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.12.61 Resolved NEXT_HOP IP Address Functionality/Description: If the entry also specifies the next-hop address, this address SHOULD be used as the immediate next-hop address for packet forwarding RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.13 MULTI_EXIT_DISC / Section 5.1.4 Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 24]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.13.62 Preferred metric Functionality/Description: Lowest value RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.13.63 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Functionality/Description: If received over EBGP, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY be propagated over IBGP to other BGP speakers within the same AS RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.13.64 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Functionality/Description: If received from a neighboring AS, it MUST NOT be propagated to other neighboring ASes RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.13.65 Remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC Functionality/Description: Local configuration mechanism to remove the attribute from a route RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 25]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.13.66 Remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC Functionality/Description: Done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.13.67 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Alteration Functionality/Description: An implementation MAY also (based on local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute received over EBGP RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.13.68 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Alteration Functionality/Description: Done prior to determining the degree of preference of the route and performing route selection RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.14 LOCAL_PREF / Section 5.1.5 3.14.69 LOCAL_PREF Functionality/Description: Included in all UPDATE messages that a given BGP speaker sends to the other internal peers Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 26]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.14.70 Degree of Preference Functionality/Description: Calculated for each external route based on the locally configured policy, and included when advertising a route to its internal peers RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.14.71 LOCAL_PREF Functionality/Description: Higher degree of preference MUST be preferred RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.14.72 LOCAL_PREF Functionality/Description: Not included in UPDATE messages sent to external peers, except for the case of BGP Confederations [RFC3065] RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 27]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.14.73 LOCAL_PREF Functionality/Description: Ignored if received from an external peer, except for the case of BGP Confederations [RFC3065] RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.15 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE / Section 5.1.6 3.15.74 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Functionality/Description: Included if an aggregate excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the routes that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.15.75 Received ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Functionality/Description: BGP speaker SHOULD NOT remove the attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.15.76 Received ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Functionality/Description: BGP speaker MUST NOT make any NLRI of that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) RFC2119: MUST NOT Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 28]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.16 AGGREGATOR / Section 5.1.7 3.16.77 AGGREGATOR Functionality/Description: Included in updates which are formed by aggregation (see Section 9.2.2.2) RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.16.78 AGGREGATOR Functionality/Description: Added by the BGP speaker performing route aggregation RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.16.79 AGGREGATOR Functionality/Description: Contain local AS number and IP address RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default behavior. Can be configured different from BGP ID. Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 29]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.16.80 AGGREGATOR IP Address Functionality/Description: The same as the BGP Identifier of the speaker RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.17 BGP Error Handling / Section 6 3.17.81 Error Handling Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the error handling procedures described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.17.82 Error Subcode Functionality/Description: Zero, if it is not specified RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.18 Message Header Error Handling / Section 6.1 3.18.83 Message Header Errors Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the NOTIFICATION message with Error Code Message Header Error RFC2119: MUST Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 30]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.18.84 Synchronization Error Functionality/Description: Error Subcode MUST be set to Connection Not Synchronized RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.18.85 Message Length Functionality/Description: Use the Bad Message Length Error Subcode to indicate an incorrect message length RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.18.86 Bad Message Length Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the erroneous Lentgh field RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.18.87 Type Field Functionality/Description: If the Type field of the message header is not recognized, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 31]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Bad Message Type RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.18.88 Bad Message Type Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the erroneous Type field RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19 OPEN message error handling / Section 6.2 3.19.89 OPEN Message Errors Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the NOTIFICATION message with Error Code OPEN Message Error RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.90 Version Number not Supported Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Unsupported Version Number RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 32]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.19.91 Unnacceptable Autonomous System Field Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad Peer AS RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.92 Unacceptable Hold Time Error Subcode Functionality/Description: Used if the Hold Time field of the OPEN message is unacceptable RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.93 Hold Time Rejection Functionality/Description: Values of one or two seconds RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.94 Hold Time Rejection Functionality/Description: An implementation may reject any proposed Hold Time RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 33]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 O ctober 2004 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.95 Hold Time Functionality/Description: If accepted, then the negotiated value MUST be used RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.96 Syntactically Incorrect BGP Identifier Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad BGP Identifier RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.97 Not recognized Optional Parameters Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Unsupported Optional Parameters RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We may fix this. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.19.98 Recognized but Malformed Optional Parameters Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 0 (Unspecific) RFC2119: MUST Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 34]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20 UPDATE message error handling / Section 6.3 3.20.99 UPDATE Message Errors Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the NOTIFICATION message with Error Code UPDATE Message Error RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.100 Too Large Functionality/Description: If the Withdrawn Routes Length or Total Attribute Length is too large, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Malformed Attribute List RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.101 Conflicting Flags Functionality/Description: If any recognized attribute has Attribute Flags that conflict with the Attribute Type Code, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Attribute Flags Error RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 35]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.20.102 Conflicting Flags Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the erroneous attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.103 Conflicting Length Functionality/Description: If any recognized attribute has Attribute Length that conflicts with the expected length, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Attribute Length Error RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.104 Conflicting Length Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the erroneous attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.105 Missing Mandatory Well-Known Attributes Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Missing Well-known Attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 36]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.106 Missing Mandatory Well-Known Attributes Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the Attribute Type Code of the missing well-known attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We plan to fix this in future. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.107 Unrecognized Mandatory Well-Known Attributes Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Unrecognized Well-known Attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We set error subcode to Attribute Flags Error, but we intend to correct this soon. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.108 Unrecognized Mandatory Well-Known Attributes Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the unrecognized attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.109 Undefined ORIGIN Functionality/Description: The Error Sub-code MUST be set to Invalid Origin Attribute Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 37]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.110 Undefined ORIGIN Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the unrecognized attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.111 Syntactically Incorrect NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Invalid NEXT_HOP Attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Ignores the prefix in case of martian nexthop, and in case of length not equal to IPv4 address-length, we send NOTIFICATION with error subcode Attribute Length error. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.112 Syntactically Incorrect NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the incorrect attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 38]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.113 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness Functionality/Description: NEXT_HOP is checked for semantic correctness against the criteria in this section RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.114 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness Functionality/Description: Not be the IP address of the receiving speaker RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.115 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness Functionality/Description: In the case of an EBGP where the sender and receiver are one IP hop away from each other, either the IP address in the NEXT_HOP MUST be the sender's IP address (that is used to establish the BGP connection), or the interface associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address MUST share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.116 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 39]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Functionality/Description: Error logged RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.117 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: Route Ignored RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.118 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: NOTIFICATION not sent RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.119 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: Connection not closed RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.120 Syntactically Incorrect AS_PATH Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 40]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Malformed AS_PATH RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.121 First Neighbor in AS_PATH check Functionality/Description: If the UPDATE message is received from an external peer, the local system MAY check whether the leftmost AS in the AS_PATH attribute is equal to the autonomous system number of the peer that sent the message RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.122 First Neighbor in AS_PATH check Functionality/Description: If the check determines that this is not the case, the Error Subcode MUST be set to Malformed AS_PATH RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.123 Optional Attributes Functionality/Description: Value MUST be checked if the attribute is recognized RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 41]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.20.124 Optional Attribute Error Functionality/Description: The attribute MUST be discarded RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.125 Optional Attribute Error Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Optional Attribute Error RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N What exactly is optional attribute e.g If error is flag related, we send update flag error subcode, if it is length related, we send update length error subcode. These granular subcodes are better in terms of debugging than optional attribute error. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Only optional attribute error that doesn't have a more specific error, is the version 3 to version 4 error for the atomic aggregate. All others default to more specific error codes if implementation. 3.20.126 Optional Attribute Error Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 42]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.127 Duplicate Attributes Functionality/Description: If any attribute appears more than once in the UPDATE message, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Malformed Attribute List RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.128 Syntactically Incorrect NLRI Field Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Invalid Network Field RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.129 Semantically Incorrect NLRI Field Functionality/Description: An error SHOULD be logged locally RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.130 Semantically Incorrect NLRI Field Functionality/Description: The prefix SHOULD be ignored RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 43]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.20.131 UPDATE with no NLRI Functionality/Description: An UPDATE message that contains correct path attributes, but no NLRI, SHALL be treated as a valid UPDATE message RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.21 NOTIFICATION message error handling / Section 6.4 3.21.132 Error in NOTIFICATION message Functionality/Description: Noticed, logged locally, and brought to the attention of the administration of the peer RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.22 Hold Timer Expired error handling / Section 6.5 3.22.133 Hold Timer Expired Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the error handling procedures described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 44]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.23 Finite State Machine error handling / Section 6.6 3.23.134 Finite State Machine Errors Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the error handling procedures described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.24 Cease / Section 6.7 3.24.135 Cease NOTIFICATION Functionality/Description: Used in absence of any fatal errors if a BGP peer chooses at any given time to close its BGP connection RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We close the TCP session without CEASE NOTIFICATION. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.24.136 Cease NOTIFICATION Functionality/Description: Not used for specified fatal errors RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.24.137 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is willing to accept from a neighbor Functionality/Description: Support by local configuration Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 45]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.24.138 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is willing to accept from a neighbor Functionality/Description: If exceeded and the BGP speaker decides to terminate its BGP connection, the Cease NOTIFICATION MUST be used RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We don't send CEASE but we plan to correct that soon. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y No termination of peers is supported We are considering support with the maximum prefix draft for later releases. 3.24.139 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is willing to accept from a neighbor Functionality/Description: Log locally RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.25 BGP connection collision detection / Section 6.8 3.25.140 Connection Collision Functionality/Description: One of the connections MUST be closed RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 46]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.25.141 Receipt of an OPEN message Functionality/Description: The local system MUST examine all of its connections that are in the OpenConfirm state RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We detect collision through some other implementation specific way and resolve by method specified in draft. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.25.142 Receipt of an OPEN message Functionality/Description: Examine connections in an OpenSent state if it knows the BGP Identifier of the peer by means outside of the protocol RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.26 BGP Version Negotiation / Section 7 3.26.143 Version Negotiation Functionality/Description: Multiple attempts to open a BGP connection, starting with the highest version number each supports RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Supports only version 4 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We resolve it through config. If Config is for version 3, and we get version 4, OPEN will always fail. Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 47]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Similarly, if configed (default) is version 4 and peers configured is 3, we don't try to negotiate version 3 unless we have configured it. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N Supports only version 4. 3.26.144 Future versions of BGP Functionality/Description: MUST retain the format of the OPEN and NOTIFICATION messages RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.27 BGP Finite State machine (FSM) / Section 8 3.27.145 FSM Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the conceptual FSM described in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28 Administrative Events / Section 8.1.2 3.28.146 Optional Session Attribute Settings Functionality/Description: Each event has an indication of what optional session attributes SHOULD be set at each stage RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Its rather vague. We have an option Of manually starting or stopping sessions but not an option for all Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 48]
draft-iet f-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 optional session attributes that are listed in draft. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y The following optional attributes are implied in this implementation: 1) Automatic start, 2) Automatic Stop, 3) 3.28.147 Event1: ManualStart Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute SHOULD be set to FALSE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.148 Event3: AutomaticStart Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.149 Event3: AutomaticStart Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment optional session attribute SHOULD be set to FALSE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.150 Event3: AutomaticStart Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 49]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Functionality/Description: DampPeerOscillations SHOULD be set to FALSE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute, so it is always FALSE. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.151 Event4: ManualStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y We wait for some fixed time before initiating OPEN. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.152 Event4: ManualStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute SHOULD be set to FALSE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute so it is FALSE. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O We don't support DampPeerOscilation attribute with a setting of off, and hence Event 4. Future version will support Event 4 3.28.153 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 50]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.154 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.155 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations SHOULD be set to FALSE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute, so always FALSE. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O We don't support DampPeerOscilation attribute with a setting of off, and hence Event 5. Future version will support Event 5 3.28.156 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 51]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.157 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.158 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute SHOULD be set to FALSE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute and hence Event6. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.159 Event 7: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute and hence Event7 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.160 Event 7: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 52]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute and hence Event7 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.161 Event 7: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute and hence Event7 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.28.162 Event8: AutomaticStop Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStop attribute SH OULD be TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.29 Timer Events / Section 8.1.3 3.29.163 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires Functionality/Description: DelayOpen attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 53]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.29.164 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires Functionality/Description: DelayOpenTime attribute SHOULD be supported RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.29.165 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires Functionality/Description: DelayOpenTimer SHOULD be supported RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.29.166 Event13: IdleHoldTimer_Expires Functionality/Description: DampPeerOscillations attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute and hence Event13 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.29.167 Event13: IdleHoldTimer_Expires Functionality/Description: IdleHoldTimer SHOULD have just expired Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 54]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations attribute and hence Event13 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.30 TCP Connection based Events / Section 8.1.4 3.30.168 Event14: TcpConnection_Valid Functionality/Description: BGP's destination port SHOULD be port 179 RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.30.169 Event14: TcpConnection_Valid Functionality/Description: The TrackTcpState attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 provides hooks for the TCP state tracking, but use of this option depends OS support. Future versions will have additional hooks. 3.30.170 Event15: Tcp_CR_Invalid Functionality/Description: BGP destination port number SHOULD be 179 RFC2119: SHOULD Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 55]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 provides hooks for the TCP state tracking, but use of this option depends OS support. Future versions will have additional hooks. 3.31 BGP Messages based Events / Seciton 8.1.5 3.31.171 Event19: BGPOpen Functionality/Description: The DelayOpen optional attribute SHOULD be set to FALSE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.31.172 Event19: BGPOpen Functionality/Description: The DelayOpenTimer SHOULD not be running RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.31.173 Event20: BGPOpen with DelayOpenTimer running Functionality/Description: The DelayOpen attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Not applicable Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 56]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.31.174 Event20: BGPOpen with DelayOpenTimer running Functionality/Description: The DelayOpenTimer SHOULD be running RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.31.175 Event23: OpenCollisionDump Functionality/Description: If the state machine is to process this event in Established state, the CollisionDetectEstablishedState optional attribute SHOULD be set to TRUE RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Collision detection event is logged. Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We always detect collision before we go to established state. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 does not support Collision Detection in Established state. This option attribute is always set to FALSE. 3.32 FSM Definition / Section 8.2.1 3.32.176 FSM Functionality/Description: Separate FSM for each configured peer RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.32.177 TCP Port 179 Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 57]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Functionality/Description: A BGP implementation MUST connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.32.178 Incoming Connections Functionality/Description: A state machine MUST be instantiated RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.33 FSM and collision detection / Section 8.2.1.2 3.33.179 Connection Collision Functionality/Description: The corresponding FSM for the connection that is closed SHOULD be disposed of RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.34 FSM Event numbers / Section 8.2.1.4 3.34.180 Event Numbers Functionality/Description: Used to provide network management information RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Not visible to operator. Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 58]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N Future Release of GateD NGC may support event numbers. 3.35 Finite State Machine / Section 8.2.2 3.35.181 ConnectRetryTimer Functionality/Description: Sufficiently large to allow TCP initialization RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.35.182 2nd connection tracking Functionality/Description: In response to a TCP connection succeeds [Event 16 or Event 17], the 2nd connection SHALL be tracked until it sends an OPEN message RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.36 UPDATE Message Handling / Section 9 3.36.183 UPDATE Message Handling Functionality/Description: Does your implementation handle UPDATE messages in a manner compatible to the description in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 59]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.36.184 WITHDRAWN ROUTES Functionality/Description: Any previously advertised routes whose destinations are contained in this field SHALL be removed from the Adj-RIB-In RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.36.185 WITHDRAWN ROUTES Functionality/Description: The BGP speaker SHALL run its Decision Process since the previously advertised route is no longer available for use RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.36.186 Implicit withdraw Functionality/Description: If an UPDATE message contains a feasible route, and the NLRI of the new route is identical to the one of a route currently stored in the Adj-RIB-In, then the new route SHALL replace the older route RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.36.187 Other feasible routes Functionality/Description: If an UPDATE message contains a Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 60]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 feasible route, and the NLRI of the new route is not identical to the one of any route currently stored in the Adj-RIB-In, then the new route SHALL be placed in the Adj-RIB-In RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.36.188 Adj-RIB-In Update Functionality/Description: Once a BGP speaker updates the Adj-RIB-In, it SHALL run its Decision Process RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.37 Decision Process / Section 9.1 3.37.189 Decision Process Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with the description in this section? RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.37.190 Degree of Preference Functionality/Description: SHALL NOT use as its inputs any of the following: the existence of other routes, the non-existence of other routes, or the path attributes of other routes RFC2119: SHALL NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 61]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.38 Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference / Section 9.1.1 3.38.191 Ineligible degree of preference Functionality/Description: The route MAY NOT serve as an input to the next phase of route selection RFC2119: MAY NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.38.192 Eligible degree of preference Functionality/Description: Used as the LOCAL_PREF value in any IBGP readvertisement RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.39 Phase 2: Route Selection / Section 9.1.2 3.39.193 Unresolvable NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP route depicts an address that is not resolvable, or it would become unresolvable if the route was installed in the routing table the BGP route MUST be excluded RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 62]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.39.194 Routes installed in LOC-RIB Functionality/Description: The route in the Adj-RIBs-In identified as the best (see section 9.1.2) is installed in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.39.195 Immediate next-hop address Functionality/Description: MUST be determined from the NEXT_HOP attribute of the selected route (see Section 5.1.3) RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.39.196 Phase 2: Route Selection Functionality/Description: Performed again if either the immediate next hop or the IGP cost to the NEXT_HOP changes RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.39.197 Immediate next-hop address Functionality/Description: Used for packet forwarding RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 63]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.39.198 Unresolvable routes Functionality/Description: Removed from the Loc-RIB and the routing table RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.39.199 Unresolvable routes Functionality/Description: Kept in the corresponding Adj-RIBs-In RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.40 Route Resolvability Condition / Section 9.1.2.1 3.40.200 Unresolvable routes Functionality/Description: Excluded from the Phase 2 decision RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.40.201 Multiple Matching Routes Functionality/Description: Only the longest matching route SHOULD be considered Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 64]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.40.202 Mutual Recursion Functionality/Description: If a route fails the resolvability check because of mutual recursion, an error message SHOULD be logged RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We have checks that disallow mutual recursion, so this won't happen. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.41 Breaking Ties (Phase 2) / Section 9.1.2.2 3.41.203 Tie-breaking criteria Functionality/Description: Applied in the order specified RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.41.204 Algorithm used Functionality/Description: BGP implementations MAY use any algorithm which produces the same results asthose described here RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 65]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.41.205 MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal Functionality/Description: If done before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received EBGP MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY still be performed RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.41.206 MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal Functionality/Description: The optional comparison on MULTI_EXIT_DISC if performed at all MUST be performed only among EBGP learned routes RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.41.207 MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparison Functionality/Description: Performed for IBGP learned routes RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.42 Phase 3: Route Dissemination / Section 9.1.3 3.42.208 Policy for processing routes from the Loc-RIB into Adj-RIBs- Out Functionality/Description: Exclude a route in the Loc-RIB from being installed in a particular Adj-RIB-Out Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 66]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.42.209 Adj-Rib-Out Route Installation Functionality/Description: Not unless the destination and NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded appropriately by the Routing Table RFC2119: SHALL NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.42.210 Withdraw routes Functionality/Description: If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in that Adj-RIB-Out MUST be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2) RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.43 Overlapping Routes / Section 9.1.4 3.43.211 Overlapping Routes Functionality/Description: Consider both routes based on the configured acceptance policy RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 67]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.43.212 Accepted Overlapping Routes Functionality/Description: The Decision Process MUST either install both routes or... RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.43.213 Accepted Overlapping Routes Functionality/Description: Aggregate the two routes and install the aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same value of the NEXT_HOP attribute RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We install both in Local RIB. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N no automatic aggregation NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N no automatic aggregation 3.43.214 Aggregation Functionality/Description: Either include all ASs used to form the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.43.215 De-aggregation Functionality/Description: Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 68]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.43.216 Route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute Functionality/Description: Not de-aggregated RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.44 Update-Send Process / Section 9.2 3.44.217 UPDATE message received from an internal peer Functionality/Description: Not re-distribute the routing information to other internal peers, unless the speaker acts as a BGP Route Reflector [RFC2796] RFC2119: SHALL NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.44.218 No replacement route Functionality/Description: All newly installed routes and all newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route SHALL be advertised to its peers by means of an UPDATE message RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 69]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.44.219 Previously Advertised Routes Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker SHOULD NOT advertise a given feasible BGP route if it would produce an UPDATE message containing the same BGP route as was previously advertised RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.44.220 Unfeasible routes Functionality/Description: Removed from the Loc-RIB RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.44.221 Changes to reachable destinations Functionality/Description: Changes to the reachable destinations within its own autonomous system SHALL also be advertised in an UPDATE message RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.44.222 A single route doesn't fit into the UPDATE message Functionality/Description: Don't advertise RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 70]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.44.223 A single route doesn't fit into the UPDATE message Functionality/Description: Log an error local RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.45 Frequency of Route Advertisement / Section 9.2.1.1 3.45.224 MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer Functionality/Description: Minimum separation between two UPDATE messages sent by a BGP speaker to a peer that advertise feasible routes and/or withdrawal of unfeasible routes to some common set of destinations RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.45.225 Fast Convergence Functionality/Description: MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for internal peers SHOULD be shorter than the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for external peers, or RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Configurable on per peer basis. Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N they are same for ebgp and ibgp NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Configuration option allows to set the time per peer. 3.45.226 Fast Convergence Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 71]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Functionality/Description: The procedure describes in this section SHOULD NOT apply for routes sent to internal peers RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Operator has to ensure that through configuration. Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default setting is off for BGP peers. 3.45.227 MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer Functionality/Description: The last route selected SHALL be advertised at the end of MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46 Aggregating Routing Information / Section 9.2.2.2 3.46.228 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Functionality/Description: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated RFC2119: SHALL NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.229 AS_SET as the First Element Functionality/Description: If the aggregated route has an AS_SET as the first element in its AS_PATH attribute, then the router that originates the route SHOULD NOT advertise the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute with this route Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 72]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.230 NEXT_HOP Functionality/Description: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL identify an interface on the BGP speaker that performs the aggregation RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.231 ORIGIN INCOMPLETE Functionality/Description: Used if at least one route among routes that are aggregated has ORIGIN with the value INCOMPLETE RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.232 ORIGIN EGP Functionality/Description: Used if at least one route among routes that are aggregated has ORIGIN with the value EGP RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 73]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.46.233 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes Functionality/Description: The aggregated AS_PATH attribu te SHALL satisfy all of the following conditions: ... RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.234 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes Functionality/Description: All tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE in the aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in all of the AS_PATH in the initial set of routes to be aggregated RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.235 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes Functionality/Description: All tuples of type AS_SET in the aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in at least one of the AS_PATH in the initial set RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.236 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes Functionality/Description: For any tuple X of type AS_SEQUENCE in the aggregated AS_PATH which precedes tuple Y in the aggregated AS_PATH, X precedes Y in each AS_PATH in the initial set which contains Y, regardless of the type of Y RFC2119: N/A Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 74]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.237 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes Functionality/Description: No tuple of type AS_SET with the same value SHALL appear more than once in the aggregated AS_PATH RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.238 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes Functionality/Description: Multiple tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE with the same value may appear in the aggregated AS_PATH only when adjacent to another tuple of the same type and value RFC2119: N/A Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.239 AS_PATH Aggregation Algorithm Functionality/Description: Able to perform the (minimum) algorithm described in 9.2.2.2. RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We don't do merging. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.240 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE Functionality/Description: The aggregated route SHALL have this Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 75]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 attribute if at least one of the routes to be aggregated has it RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.241 AGGREGATOR Functionality/Description: Attribute from routes to be aggregated MUST NOT be included in aggregated route RFC2119: MUST NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.46.242 AGGREGATOR Functionality/Description: Attach a new one when aggregating (see Section 5.1.7) RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.47 Route Selection Criteria / Section 9.3 3.47.243 Unstable routes Functionality/Description: Avoid using them RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 76]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.47.244 Route changes Functionality/Description: SHOULD NOT make rapid spontaneous changes to the choice of route RFC2119: SHOULD NOT Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.48 Originating BGP routes / Section 9.4 3.48.245 Non-BGP acquired routes Functionality/Description: Distributed to other BGP speakers within the local AS as part of the update process (see Section 9.2) RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.48.246 Non-BGP acquired routes Functionality/Description: Distribution controlled via configuration RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.49 BGP Timers / Section 10 3.49.247 Optional Timers Functionality/Description: Two optional timers MAY be supported: DelayOpenTimer, IdleHoldTimer by BGP Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 77]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We support DelayOpenTimer but not IdleHoldTimer Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y support IdleHoldTimer but not the DelayOpenTimer NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.49.248 Hold Time Functionality/Description: Configurable on a per peer basis RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.49.249 Timers Functionality/Description: Allow the other timers to be configurable RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.49.250 Jitter Functionality/Description: Applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, KeepAlive, MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We only apply to ConnectRetry. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 78]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.49.251 Jitter Functionality/Description: Apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per peer" basis RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y We app ly same only for connectretry. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.49.252 Default amount of jitter Functionality/Description: Determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0 RFC2119: SHALL Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Range is 0.9 to 1.1 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.49.253 Default amount of jitter Functionality/Description: New random value picked each time the timer is set RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3.49.254 Jitter Random Value Range Functionality/Description: Configurable RFC2119: MAY Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 79]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N 3.50 TCP options that may be used with BGP / Appendix E 3.50.255 TCP PUSH function supported Functionality/Description: Each BGP message SHOULD be transmitted with PUSH flag set RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O Depends on the TCP stack support. GateD 10, NGC can run over multiple stacks. 3.50.256 DSCP Field Support Functionality/Description: TCP connections opened with bits 0-2 of the DSCP field set to 110 (binary) RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O Depends on the TCP stack support. GateD 10, NGC can run over multiple stacks. 3.51 Reducing route flapping / Appendix F.2 3.51.257 Avoid excessive route flapping Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker which needs to withdraw a destination and send an update about a more specific or less specific route SHOULD combine them into the same UPDATE message RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 80]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3.52 Complex AS_PATH aggregation / Appendix F.6 3.52.258 Multiple instances in AS_PATH Functionality/Description: The last instance (rightmost occurrence) of that AS number is kept RFC2119: SHOULD Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N We use algorithm in 9.2.2.2 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N 3.53 Security Considerations 3.53.259 Authentication Mechanism Functionality/Description: RFC2385 RFC2119: MUST Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 4. Additional BGP implementations Information Three implementations responded to a call (5/20/04-6/2/04) for information on those implementations that had a BGP implementation, but did not complete the full survey. The responses for the call for additional information are below. 4.1 Avici If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send me the answer the following questions: 1) BGP product Contributor (your name):Curtis Villamizar [curtis@fictitious.org] Company: Avici name of product: IPriori (TM) minor version: No interoperability problems with any version. Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 81]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Current deployed versions are 5.x and 6.0.x. Version 6.1 and beyond are tested against the latest BGP draft soon to replace rfc1771. 2) What other implementations you interoperate with. Cisco: IOS 12.0(22) Juniper: JUNOS (version not given) 3) Do you inter-operate with: 1) Alcatel BGP (release) - not tested 2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s - not tested tested with IOS 12.0(22); BGP is the same 3) laurel BGP (specify release) - not tested 4) NextHop GateD- not tested 4) Did the length of the survey for BGP cause you to not submit the BGP implementation report? yes 4.2 Data Connection Ltd. If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send me the answer the following questions: 1) BGP product Contributor (your name): Mike Dell Company: Data Connection Ltd. name of product: DC-BGP version and minor of software: v1.1 release date: April 2003 2) What other implementations you interoperate with. Cisco (12.0(26)S) Alcatal (7770 0BX) Agilent (Router Tester) Ixia (1600T) Netplane (Powercode) Nortel (Shasta 5000 BSN) Redback (SmartEdge 800) Riverstone (RS8000) Spirent (AX4000) Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 82]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 IP Infusion (ZebOs) Nokia (IP400) Juniper (M5) 3) Do you inter-operate with 1) Alcatel BGP (release) YES 2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s Unknown, but we do inter-operate with v12.0(26)s 3) laurel BGP (specify release) Unknown 4) NextHop GateD YES 4) Did the length of the survey for BGP cause you to not submit the BGP implementation report? YES 4.3 Nokia If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send me the answer the following questions: 1) BGP product Contributor (your name):Rahul Bahadur (rahul.bahadur@nokia.com) Company: Nokia Name of product: IP Security Platforms Version and minor of software IPSO 3.8 Build031 Release date May 24, 2004 2) What other implementations you interoperate with. Cisco: IOS 12.3(1) Extreme: Extremeware Version 6.1.7 (Build 9) Foundry: SW Version 07.5.05iT53 Juniper: JUNOS 5.3R1.2 Nortel: BayRS 15.4.0.1 GNU Zebra: zebra-0.92a 3) Do you inter-operate with 1) Alcatel BGP (release) - not tested 2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s - yes 3) laurel BGP (specify release) - not tested 4) NextHop GateD- not tested Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 83]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 4) Did the length of the survey for BGP cause you to not submit the BGP implementation report? Yes - lack of resources to help with task. Security Considerations This document does not address any security issues. Normative References [BGP4] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt, June 2004 [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC1771, March 1995 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, March 1997 [RFC2385] A. Heffernan, "Protection of BGP Session via a TCP MD5 Signature", RFC2385, August 1998 [RFC2796] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Chen, E., "BGP Route Reflection - an Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000 [RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC2918, September 2000 [RFC3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., Scudder, J., "Autonomous Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001 [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, February 2004 [RFC3668] Bradner, S. "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, February 2004 Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 84]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 Acknowledgments Alcatel Responses provided by: Contact Name: Devendra Raut Contact Email: Devendra.raut@Alcatel.com Cisco Systems Responses provided by: Contact Name: Himanshu Shah, Ruchi Kapoor Contact e-mail Address: hhshah@cisco.com, ruchi@cisco.com Laurel Responses provided by: Contact Name: Manish Vora Contact e-mail Address: vora@laurelnetworks.com NextHop Responses provided by: Contact Name: Susan Hares Contact e-mail Address: skh@nexthop.com Additional Help: Matt Richardson, Shane Wright. Authors' Addresses Susan Hares NextHop Technologies 825 Victors Way, Suite 100 Phone: 734.222.1610 Email: skh@nexthop.com Alvaro Retana Cisco Systems, Inc. 7025 Kit Creek Rd. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: 919 392 2061 e-mail: aretana@cisco.com 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. Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 85]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 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 (2004). 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. Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 86]
