Network Working Group Bob Thomas
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: April 2006
Loa Andersson
Acreo AB
October 2005
LDP Implementation Survey Results
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Thomas & Andersson [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a method for forwarding
packets that uses short, fixed-length values carried by packets,
called labels, to determine packet nexthops [RFC3031]). A
fundamental concept in MPLS is that two Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) must agree on the meaning of the labels used to forward
traffic between and through them. This common understanding is
achieved by using a set of procedures, called a label distribution
protocol, by which one LSR informs another of label bindings it has
made. One such protocol called LDP [RFC3036] is used by LSRs to
distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding along normally routed
paths. This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations
conducted in August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from
proposed to draft standard.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................... 3
1.1 The LDP Survey Form ................................ 3
1.2 LDP Survey Highlights .............................. 4
2 Survey Results for LDP Features .................... 5
3 References ......................................... 8
4 Author Information ................................. 8
Appendix A Full LDP Survey Results ............................ 9
Appendix B LDP Implementation Survey Form ..................... 14
Full Copyright Notice .............................. 22
Thomas & Andersson [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
1. Introduction
This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations conducted in
August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from proposed to
draft standard.
This section highlights some of the survey results. Section 2
presents the survey results for LDP features, and Appendix A presents
the survey results in full. Appendix B contains a copy of the survey
form.
1.1. The LDP Survey Form
The LDP implementation survey requested the following information
about LDP implementation:
- Responding organization. Provisions were made to accommondate
organizations that wished to respond anonymously.
- The status, availability and origin of the LDP implementation.
- The LDP features implemented and for each whether it was tested
against an independent implementation. The survey form listed each
LDP feature defined by RFC3036 and requested one of the following
as the status of the feature:
t: Tested against another independent implementation;
y: Implemented but not tested against independent
implementation;
n: Not implemented;
x: Not applicable to this type of implementation;
In addition for the 'n' status the responder could optionally
provide the following additional information:
s: RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing;
u: Utility of feature unclear;
r: Feature not required for feature set implemented;
This document uses the following conventions for reporting survey
results for a feature:
At By Cn indicates:
- A responders implemented the feature and tested it against
another independent implementation (t);
- B responders implemented the feature but have not tested it
Thomas & Andersson [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
against an independent implmented (y);
- C responders did not implement the the feature (n);
(Ds Eu Fr) indicates optional responses:
- D responders thought the RFC3036 specification of the feature
inadequate, unclear, or confusing (s).
- E responders thought the utility of the feature unclear (u).
- F responders considered the feature not required for the feature
set implemented (combines x and r).
1.2. LDP Survey Highlights
This section presents some highlights from the implementatation
survey.
- There were 12 responses to the survey, 2 of which were anonymous.
At the time of the survey 10 of the implementation were available
as products and 2 were in beta test. Eleven of the
implementations were available for sale; the remaining
implementation had been done by a company no longer in business.
- Seven implementations were independently written from the RFC3036
specification. Four implementations combined purchased or free
code with code written by the responder.
One of the implementations was fully purchased code ported to the
vendor's platform.
- Every LDP feature in the survey questionnaire was implemented by
at least 2 respondents.
- Each of the 8 LDP Label Distribution Modes implemented and
tested;
8t 2y 2n DU, Ord Cntl, Lib Reten
7t 1y 4n DU, Ind Cntl, Lib Reten
7t 1y 4n DoD Ord Cntl, Cons Reten
6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind Cntl, Cons Reten
6t 1y 5n DU, Ord Cntl, Cons Reten
6t 0y 6n DU, Ind Cntl, Cons Reten
4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord Cntl, Lib Reten
4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind,Cntl, Lib Reten
Thomas & Andersson [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
- Platform and Interface Label Spaces were both widely supported.
12t 0y 0n Per Platform
7t 1y 4n Per Interface
- LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported.
12t 0y 0n Basic/Directly Connected
11t 1y 0n Targeted
- The TCP MD5 Option for LDP session TCP connections was not widely
implemented.
3t 1y 8n
2. Survey Results for LDP Features
This section presents the survey results for LDP features using the
notational convention described in Section 1.2. It omits the
optional status responses (s, u, r); complete results may be found in
Appendix A.
Feature
Survey Result
Interface types
12t 0y 0n Packet
2t 3y 7n Frame Relay
6t 2y 4n ATM
Label Spaces
12t 0y 0n Per platform
7t 1y 4n Per interface
LDP Discovery
12t 0y 0n Basic
11t 1y 0n Targeted
LDP Sessions
12t 0y 0n Directly Connected
11t 1y 0n Targeted
LDP Modes
7t 1y 4n DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten
8t 2y 2n DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten
6t 0y 6n DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten
6t 1y 5n DU, Ord cntl Cons reten
4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten
4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten
6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten
7t 1y 4n DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten
Thomas & Andersson [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Loop Detection
9t 2y 1n
TCP MD5 Option
3t 1y 8n
LDP TLVs
7t 4y 0n U-bit
7t 4y 0n F-bit
12t 0y 0n FEC TLV
6t 5y 1n Wildcard
12t 0y 0n Prefix
10t 0y 2n Host
12t 0y 0n Address List TLV
10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV
9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV
12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV
6t 2y 4n ATM Label TLV
2t 3y 7n Frame Relay Label TLV
12t 0y 0n Status TLV
9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV
6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV
6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV
12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV
12t 0y 0n T-bit
11t 0y 1n R-bit
11t 1y 0n Hold Time
12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV
7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV
1t 1y 1n IPv6 Transport Addr TLV
12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV
12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time
11t 0y 1n PVLim
11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length
6t 2y 2n ATM Session Param TLV
M values
5t 3y 4n 0 No Merge
3t 3y 6n 1 VP Merge
5t 3y 4n 2 VC Merge
3t 3y 6n 3 VP & VC Merge
6t 2y 4n D-bit
6t 2y 4n ATM Label Range Component
2t 3y 7n FR Session Param TLV
M values
2t 3y 7n 0 No Merge
2t 3y 7n 1 Merge
2t 3y 7n D-bit
2t 3y 7n FR Label Range Component
10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV
2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private TLV
Thomas & Andersson [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
1t 5y 6n Experimental TLV
LDP Messages
12t 0y 0n Notification Msg
12t 0y 0n Hello Msg
12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg
12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg
12t 0y 0n Address Msg
12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg
12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg
10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg Id TLV
10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV
10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV
9t 0y 3n Label Request Msg
9t 0y 3n Hop Count TLV
9t 0y 3n Path Vect TLV
12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg
12t 0y 0n Label TLV
11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg
10t 1y 1n Label TLV
9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg
2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private Msg
1t 5y 6n Experimental Msg
LDP Status Codes
9t 3y 0n Success
8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id
7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version
7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length
7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type
7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length
7t 4y 0n Unknown TLV
7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length
7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value
11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired
11t 1y 0n Shutdown
10t 1y 1n Loop Detected
7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC
11t 1y 0n No Route
9t 3y 0n No Label Resources
8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable
Session Rejected
7t 5y 0n No Hello
9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode
9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len
8t 3y 1n Param Label Range
7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time
11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired
9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted
6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params
Thomas & Andersson [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family
7t 5y 0n Internal Error
3. References
[RFC3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001.
[RFC3036] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, B.
Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC3036, January 2001.
[RFC3037] B. Thomas, E. Gray, "LDP Applicability", RFC3037, January
2001.
4. Author Information
Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough MA 01719
Loa Andersson
Acreo AB
Isafjordsgatan 22
Kista, Sweden
Thomas & Andersson [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results
LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0]
=======================================================================
A. General information.
Responders:
Anonymous: 2
Public: 10
Agilent Technologies
Celox Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Data Connection Ltd.
NetPlane Systems, Inc
Trillium, An Intel Company
Redback Networks
Riverstone Networks
Vivace Networks, Inc.
Wipro Technologies
=======================================================================
B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
Status:
[ ] Development
[ ] Alpha
[ 2] Beta
[10] Product
[ ] Other (describe):
Availability
[ ] Public and free
[ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free
[11] On sale.
[ ] For internal company use only
[ 1] Other:
Implementation based on: (check all that apply)
[ 1] Purchased code
(please list source if possible)
[ ] Free code
(please list source if possible)
[ 7] Internal implementation
(no outside code, just from specs)
[ 4] Internal implementation on top of purchased
or free code
Thomas & Andersson [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
=======================================================================
C. LDP Feature Survey.
For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the
implementation using one of the following:
't' tested against another independent implementation
'y' implemented but not tested against independent
implementation
'n' not implemented
'x' not applicable to this type of implementation
Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing
using one of the following:
's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
'u' utility of feature unclear
'r' feature not required for feature set implemented
Feature RFC3036 Section(s)
Survey Result
Interface types 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2
12t 0y 0n Packet
2t 3y 7n(3r 1x) Frame Relay
6t 2y 4n(3r) ATM
Label Spaces 2.2.1, 2.2.2
12t 0y 0n Per platform
7t 1y 4n(4r) Per interface
LDP Discovery 2.4
12t 0y 0n Basic 2.4.1
11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.4.2
LDP Sessions 2.2.3
12t 0y 0n Directly Connected --
11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.3
LDP Modes 2.6
7t 1y 4n(2u 1r) DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6
8t 2y 2n(1r) DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6
6t 0y 6n(2u 2r) DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6
6t 1y 5n(1u 2r) DU, Ord cntl Cons reten 2.6
4t 2y 6n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6
4t 3y 5n(2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6
6t 1y 5n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6
7t 1y 4n(1u 2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten 2.6
Loop Detection 2.8
9t 2y 1n
TCP MD5 Option 2.9
3t 1y 8n(1u 1r 1x)
Thomas & Andersson [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
LDP TLVs 3.3, 3.4, throughout
7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) U-bit 3.3
7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) F-bit 3.3
FEC TLV 1, 2.1, 3.4.1
6t 5y 1n(1r) Wildcard 3.4.1
12t 0y 0n Prefix 3.4.1
10t 0y 2n(s1 1u 1r) Host 2.1, 3.4.1
12t 0y 0n Address List TLV 3.4.3
10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.4.4
9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV 3.4.5
12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV 3.4.2.1
6t 2y 4n(2r) ATM Label TLV 3.4.2.2
2t 3y 7n(1u 2r 1x) Frame Relay Label TLV 3.4.2.3
12t 0y 0n Status TLV 3.4.6
9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV 3.5.1
6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV 3.5.1
6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV 3.5.1
12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV 3.5.2
12t 0y 0n T-bit 3.5.2
11t 0y 1n R-bit 3.5.2
11t 1y 0n Hold Time 3.5.2
12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2
7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV 3.5.2
1t 1y 1n(1u 4r 1x) IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2
12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV 3.5.3
12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time 3.5.3
11t 0y 1n PVLim 3.5.3
11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length 3.5.3
6t 2y 2n(1r 1x) ATM Session Param TLV 3.5.3
M values
5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3
3t 3y 6n(s 1 1r 1x) 1 VP Merge 3.5.3
5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 2 VC Merge 3.5.3
3t 3y 6n(s1 1r 1x) 3 VP & VC Merge 3.5.3
6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) D-bit 3.5.3
6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) ATM Label Range 3.5.3
Component
2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Session Param TLV 3.5.3
M values
2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3
2t 3y 7n 1 Merge 3.5.3
2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) D-bit 3.5.3
2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Label Range 3.5.3
Component
10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV 3.5.7
2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private TLV 3.6.1.1
1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental TLV 3.6.2
Thomas & Andersson [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
LDP Messages 3.5, throughout
12t 0y 0n Notification Msg 3.5.1
12t 0y 0n Hello Msg 3.5.2
12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg 3.5.3
12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg 3.5.4
12t 0y 0n Address Msg 3.5.5
12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg 3.5.6
12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg 3.5.7
10t 0y 2n(1r) Label Request Msg Id TLV 3.5.7
10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.5.7
10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV 3.5.7
9t 0y 3n(1x) Label Request Msg 3.5.8
9t 0y 3n(1x) Hop Count TLV 3.5.8
9t 0y 3n(1x) Path Vect TLV 3.5.8
12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg 3.5.10
12t 0y 0n Label TLV 3.5.10
11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg 3.5.11
10t 1y 1n Label TLV 3.5.11
9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg 3.5.9
2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private Msg 3.6.1.2
1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental Msg 3.6.2
LDP Status Codes 3.4.6
9t 3y 0n Success 3.4.6, 3.9
8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id 3.5.1.2.1
7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version 3.5.1.2.1
7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length 3.5.1.2.1
7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type 3.5.1.2.1
7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length 3.5.1.2.1
7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) Unknown TLV 3.5.1.2.2
7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length 3.5.1.2.2
7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value 3.5.1.2.2
11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired 3.5.1.2.3
11t 1y 0n Shutdown 3.5.1.2.4
10t 1y 1n Loop Detected 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1
7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC 3.4.1.1
11t 1y 0n No Route 3.5.8.1
9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 3.5.8.1
8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable 3.5.8.1
Session Rejected 2.5.3, 3.5.3
7t 5y 0n No Hello 2.5.3, 3.5.3
9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode 2.5.3, 3.5.3
9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len 2.5.3, 3.5.3
8t 3y 1n Param Label Range 2.5.3, 3.5.3
7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3
11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3
9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted 3.5.9.1
6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params 3.5.1.2.1
7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1
Thomas & Andersson [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
7t 5y 0n Internal Error 3.5.1.2.7
Thomas & Andersson [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Appendix B. LDP Implementation Survey Form
LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0]
The purpose of this form is to gather information about
implementations of LDP as defined by RFC3036. The information is
being requested as part of the process of advancing LDP from Proposed
to Draft Standard.
The form is patterned after the implementation report form used for
HTTP/1.1; see:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/http1.1-implementations.txt
=======================================================================
A. General information.
Please provide the following information.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Organization:
Organization url(s):
----------------------------------------------------------------
Product title(s):
Brief description(s):
----------------------------------------------------------------
Contact for LDP information
Name:
Title:
E-mail:
Organization/department:
Postal address:
Phone:
Fax:
=======================================================================
B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
Please check [x] the boxes that apply.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas & Andersson [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Status:
[ ] Development
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] Product
[ ] Other (describe):
Availability
[ ] Public and free
[ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free
[ ] On sale.
[ ] For internal company use only
[ ] Other:
Implementation based on: (check all that apply)
[ ] Purchased code
(please list source if possible)
[ ] Free code
(please list source if possible)
[ ] Internal implementation
(no outside code, just from specs)
[ ] Internal implementation on top of purchased
or free code
List portions from external source:
List portions developed internally:
=======================================================================
C. LDP Feature Survey.
For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the implementation
using one of the following:
't' tested against another independent implementation
'y' implemented but not tested against independent implementation
'n' not implemented
'-' not applicable to this type of implementation
Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing using
one of the following:
's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
'u' utility of feature unclear
'r' feature not required for feature set implemented
Thomas & Andersson [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
| | Status
| | (one of t, y, n, -; if n,
Feature | RFC3036 Section(s) | optionally one of s, u, r)
==================+=============================+=========================
Interface types | 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Packet | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Frame Relay | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
ATM | |
==================+=============================+=========================
Label Spaces | 2.2.1, 2.2.2
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Per platform | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Per interface | |
==================+=============================+=========================
LDP Discovery | 2.4
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Basic | 2.4.1 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Targeted | 2.4.2 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
LDP Sessions | 2.2.3
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Directly | -- |
Connected | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Targeted | 2.3 |
==================+=============================+=========================
LDP Modes | 2.6
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
Lib retention | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
Lib retention | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
Cons retention | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
Cons retention | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
Lib retention | |
Thomas & Andersson [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
Lib retention | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
Cons retention | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
Cons retention | |
==================+=============================+=========================
Loop Detection | 2.8 |
==================+=============================+=========================
TCP MD5 Option | 2.9 |
==================+=============================+=========================
LDP TLVs | 3.3, 3.4, throughout
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
U-bit | 3.3 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
F-bit | 3.3 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
FEC | 1., 2.1, 3.4.1 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Wildcard | 3.4.1 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Prefix | 2.1, 3.4.1 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Host | 2.1, 3.4.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Address List | 3.4.3 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Hop Count | 3.4.4 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Path Vector | 3.4.5 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Generic Label | 3.4.2.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
ATM Label | 3.4.2.2 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Frame Relay | 3.4.2.3 |
Label | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Status | 3.4.6 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Extended Status | 3.5.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Returned PDU | 3.5.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Returned Message| 3.5.1 |
Thomas & Andersson [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Common Hello | 3.5.2 |
Parameters | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
T-bit | 3.5.2 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
R-bit | 3.5.2 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Hold Time | 3.5.2 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
IPv4 Transport | 3.5.2 |
Address | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Configuration | 3.5.2 |
Sequence Number | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
IPv6 Transport | 3.5.2 |
Address | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Common Session | 3.5.3 |
Parameters | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
KeepAlive Time| 3.5.3 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
PVLim | 3.5.3 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Max PDU Length| 3.5.3 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
ATM Session | 3.5.3 |
Parameters | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
M values | |
0 No Merge | 3.5.3 |
------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
1 VP Merge | 3.5.3 |
------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
2 VC Merge | 3.5.3 |
------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
3 VP & | 3.5.3 |
VC Merge | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
D-bit | 3.5.3 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
ATM Label | 3.5.3 |
Range | |
Component | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Frame Relay | 3.5.3 |
Thomas & Andersson [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Session | |
Parameters | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
M values | |
0 No Merge | 3.5.3 |
------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
1 Merge | 3.5.3 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
D-bit | 3.5.3 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Frame Relay | 3.5.3 |
Label Range | |
Component | |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Request | 3.5.7 |
Message ID | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Experimental | 3.6.2 |
==================+=============================+=========================
LDP Messages | 3.5, throughout
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Notification | 3.5.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Hello | 3.5.2 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Initialization | 3.5.3 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
KeepAlive | 3.5.4 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Address | 3.5.5 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Address Withdraw| 3.5.6 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Mapping | 3.5.7 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Request | 3.5.7 |
Message ID TLV| |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Hop Count TLV | 3.5.7 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Path Vect TLV | 3.5.7 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Request | 3.5.8 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Hop Count TLV | 3.5.8 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Thomas & Andersson [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Path Vect TLV | 3.5.8 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Withdraw | 3.5.10 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label TLV | 3.5.10 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Release | 3.5.11 |
----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label TLV | 3.5.11 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Abort Req | 3.5.9 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.2 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Experimental | 3.6.2 |
==================+=============================+=========================
LDP Status Codes | 3.4.6
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Success | 3.4.6, 3.9 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Bad LDP Id | 3.5.1.2.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Bad Ptcl Version| 3.5.1.2.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Bad PDU Length | 3.5.1.2.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Unknown Message | 3.5.1.2.1 |
Type | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Bad Message | 3.5.1.2.1 |
Length | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Unknown TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Bad TLV length | 3.5.1.2.2 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Malformed TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 |
Value | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Hold Timer | 3.5.1.2.3 |
Expired | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Shutdown | 3.5.1.2.4 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Loop Detected | 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Unknown FEC | 3.4.1.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Thomas & Andersson [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
No Route | 3.5.8.1 |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
No Label | 3.5.8.1 |
Resources | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Resources | 3.5.8.1 |
Available | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
No Hello | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
Parameters | |
Advert Mode | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
Parameters | |
Max PDU Length | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
Parameters | |
Label Range | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
KeepAlive Timer | 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 |
Expired | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Label Request | 3.5.9.1 |
Aborted | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Missing Message | 3.5.1.2.1 |
Parameters | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Unsupported | 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 |
Address Family | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Session Rejected| 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 |
Bad KeepAlive | |
Time | |
------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------------
Internal Error | 3.5.1.2.7 |
==================+=============================+=========================
Thomas & Andersson [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents
except in the case where such document is the product of a joint
development effort between the IETF and another standards development
organization or the document is a republication of the work of
another standards organization. Such exceptions must be approved on
an individual basis by the IAB.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Thomas & Andersson [Page 22]
