Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey
draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey
Network Working Group Enke Chen
Internet Draft Redback Networks
Expiration Date: November 2004 Editor
BGP Route Reflection - Implementation Report
draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
2. Abstract
This document provides an implementation report for the BGP Route
Relection.
Chen [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004
3. Summary
This document provides an implementation report for the BGP Route
Reflection [1]. Each response is listed. The editor makes no claim
as to the accuracy of the information provided.
The following organizations reported having implementations of the
BGP Route Reflection: Alcatel, Alcatel Networks, Nexthop
Technologies, and Redback Networks.
4. Implementation Forms
4.1. Alcatel
Person filling out this form: Brian Winger <brian.winger@alcatel.com>
Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the
Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP
peer?
Yes
Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes
(ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document?
Yes
Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection
based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as
specified in the document?
Yes
Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID
and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route
reflection?
Yes
Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST
attributes into account in route selection as specified in the
document?
No
List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route
Chen [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004
Reflection interoperability.
Cisco, Juniper
4.2. Alcatel Networks
Person filling out this form: Devendra Raut
<draut@TiMetraNetworks.com>
Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the
Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP
peer?
Yes.
Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes
(ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document?
Yes.
Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection
based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as
specified in the document?
Yes.
Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID
and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route
reflection?
Yes.
Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST
attributes into account in route selection as specified in the
document?
Yes.
List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route
Reflection interoperability.
Juniper & Cisco.
Chen [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004
4.3. NextHop Technologies, Inc.
Person filling out this form: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the
Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP
peer?
Yes
Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes
(ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document?
Yes
Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection
based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as
specified in the document?
Yes
Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID
and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route
reflection?
Yes
Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST
attributes into account in route selection as specified in the
document?
This can be optionally configured.
List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route
Reflection interoperability.
Cisco, Juniper
4.4. Redback Networks
Person filling out this form: Jenny Yuan (jenny@redback.com)
Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the
Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP
peer?
Yes
Chen [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004
Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes
(ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document?
Yes
Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection
based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as
specified in the document?
Yes
Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID
and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route
reflection?
Yes
Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST
attributes into account in route selection as specified in the
document?
Yes
List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route
Reflection interoperability.
Cisco, Juniper
5. Security Considerations
This document does not address any security issues.
6. IANA Considerations
No parameters are defined in this document.
Chen [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004
7. References
[1] T. Bates, R. Chandra and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An
Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-00.txt,
March 2004.
8. Author Information
Enke Chen
Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
Email: enke@redback.com
Chen [Page 6]
