idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3667, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 4170. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 4145. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 4154. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 4160. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 63 longer pages, the longest (page 44) being 62 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 86 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 2757 has weird spacing: '...tribute is...' -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not defined in RFC 2119. If it is intended as a requirements expression, it should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119; otherwise it should not be all-uppercase. == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph: Functionality/Description: The DelayOpenTimer SHOULD not be running == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: Functionality/Description: The route MAY NOT serve as an input to the next phase of route selection -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 2004) is 7131 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3667' is defined on line 4094, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3668' is defined on line 4097, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-24 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1771 (Obsoleted by RFC 4271) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2796 (Obsoleted by RFC 4456) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3065 (Obsoleted by RFC 5065) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3667 (Obsoleted by RFC 3978) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3668 (Obsoleted by RFC 3979) Summary: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Interdomain Working Group 2 Internet Draft S. Hares 3 Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02.txt NextHop 4 A. Retana 5 Cisco 6 Expires: April 2005 October 2004 8 BGP 4 Implementation Report 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, we certify that any applicable 13 patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been 14 disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which we become aware 15 will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as 20 Internet-Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 23 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 24 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 25 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 26 progress". 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt . 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html" 34 Abstract 36 This document provides a survey of the BGP-4 implementation draft- 37 ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt. After a brief summary, each response is 38 listed. The editors created the draft based on the input given by 39 those contributors responding to the survey. 41 The editors did not verify the accuracy of the information submitted 42 by contributor by an exterior means. The contributors are experts 43 with the products they reported on. 45 Conventions used in this document 47 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 49 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 50 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 51 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i]. 53 TABLE of CONTENTS 55 1. Introduction...................................................3 56 2. Results of Survey..............................................4 57 2.1 Differences................................................5 58 2.2 Implementations and interoperability.......................6 59 2.3 BGP Implementation Identification..........................7 60 3. BGP4 Implementation Report.....................................7 61 3.0 Summary of Operation / Section 3...........................7 62 3.1 Routes: Advertisement and Storage / Section 3.1............8 63 3.2 Routing Information Bases / Section 3.2....................9 64 3.3 Message Formats / Section 4................................9 65 3.4 Message Header Format / Section 4.1........................9 66 3.5 OPEN Message / Section 4.2................................11 67 3.6 UPDATE Message Format / Section 4.3.......................11 68 3.7 KEEPALIVE Message Format / Section 4.4....................15 69 3.8 NOTIFICATION Message Format / Section 4.5.................15 70 3.9 Path Attributes /Section 5................................16 71 3.10 ORIGIN / Section 5.1.1...................................19 72 3.11 AS_PATH / Section 5.1.2..................................20 73 3.12 NEXT_HOP / Section 5.1.3.................................21 74 3.13 MULTI_EXIT_DISC / Section 5.1.4..........................24 75 3.14 LOCAL_PREF / Section 5.1.5...............................26 76 3.15 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE / Section 5.1.6.........................28 77 3.16 AGGREGATOR / Section 5.1.7...............................29 78 3.17 BGP Error Handling / Section 6...........................30 79 3.18 Message Header Error Handling / Section 6.1..............30 80 3.19 OPEN message error handling / Section 6.2................32 81 3.20 UPDATE message error handling / Section 6.3..............35 82 3.21 NOTIFICATION message error handling / Section 6.4........44 83 3.22 Hold Timer Expired error handling / Section 6.5..........44 84 3.23 Finite State Machine error handling / Section 6.6........45 85 3.24 Cease / Section 6.7......................................45 86 3.25 BGP connection collision detection / Section 6.8.........46 87 3.26 BGP Version Negotiation / Section 7......................47 88 3.27 BGP Finite State machine (FSM) / Section 8...............48 89 3.28 Administrative Events / Section 8.1.2....................48 90 3.29 Timer Events / Section 8.1.3.............................53 91 3.30 TCP Connection based Events / Section 8.1.4..............55 92 3.31 BGP Messages based Events / Seciton 8.1.5................56 93 3.32 FSM Definition / Section 8.2.1...........................57 94 3.33 FSM and collision detection / Section 8.2.1.2............58 95 3.34 FSM Event numbers / Section 8.2.1.4......................58 96 3.35 Finite State Machine / Section 8.2.2.....................59 98 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 100 3.36 UPDATE Message Handling / Section 9......................59 101 3.37 Decision Process / Section 9.1...........................61 102 3.38 Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference / Section 9.1.1 103 ..............................................................62 104 3.39 Phase 2: Route Selection / Section 9.1.2.................62 105 3.40 Route Resolvability Condition / Section 9.1.2.1..........64 106 3.41 Breaking Ties (Phase 2) / Section 9.1.2.2................65 107 3.42 Phase 3: Route Dissemination / Section 9.1.3.............66 108 3.43 Overlapping Routes / Section 9.1.4.......................67 109 3.44 Update-Send Process / Section 9.2........................69 110 3.45 Frequency of Route Advertisement / Section 9.2.1.1.......71 111 3.46 Aggregating Routing Information / Section 9.2.2.2........72 112 3.47 Route Selection Criteria / Section 9.3...................76 113 3.48 Originating BGP routes / Section 9.4.....................77 114 3.49 BGP Timers / Section 10..................................77 115 3.50 TCP options that may be used with BGP / Appendix E.......80 116 3.51 Reducing route flapping / Appendix F.2...................80 117 3.52 Complex AS_PATH aggregation / Appendix F.6...............81 118 3.53 Security Considerations..................................81 119 4. Additional BGP implementations Information....................81 120 4.1 Avici.....................................................81 121 4.2 Data Connection Ltd.......................................82 122 4.3 Nokia.....................................................83 123 Security Considerations..........................................8 124 4 125 Normative References.............................................84 126 Acknowledgments..................................................85 127 Authors' Addresses...............................................85 128 Intellectual Property Statement..................................85 129 Copyright Statement..............................................86 131 1. 132 Introduction 134 This document surveys implementations of BGP based on [BGP4]/RFCxxx. 135 RFCxxxx updates the BGP standard [RFC1771] to be in alignment with 136 the deployments of the BGP-4 protocols. BGP-4 as deployed in the 137 Internet encompasses both this base specification and additional 138 specifications such as TCP MD5 [RFC2385], BGP Route Reflectors [RFC 139 2796], BGP Confederations [RFC3065], and BGP Route Refresh [RFC 140 2918]. 142 BGP as a widely deployed cornerstone of Internet technology 143 continues to add additional functionality as the needs within the 144 Internet requires. This survey has 259 detailed questions on the 145 compliance with the revised standard. 4 implementers (Alcatel, 146 Cisco, Laurel, NextHop) sent in implementation reports. Section 3 147 provides a compilation of those results. 149 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 151 Section 2.1 provides an overview of the differences of between those 152 implementations. Section 2.2 provides an inter-operability of the 4 153 implementations. 155 Due to the large number of BGP implementations and the small number 156 of responses, the editors took an informal survey to determine if 157 the length of survey was an issue. Three implementers responded, 158 and all indicated the length of the survey was the issue. Section 3 159 gives this informal survey results. 161 The editors have compiled the submitted survey results and the 162 informal survey results based on the submitted information. 164 2. 165 Results of Survey 167 Significant Differences 169 For every item listed (259 questions), the respondents indicated 170 whether their implementation supports the Functionality/Description 171 or not (Y/N) indicated by the RFC2199 [RFC2119] language. Of the 259 172 questions in the survey, had two implementations giving an 173 affirmative response (two "y" or "y" and "O") except the following: 175 a) Must - Linked questions 212/213, regarding section 9.1.4 177 The linking of the questions lead to question 213 having three 178 vendors (Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop) give a "no" as the second 179 half of a question due to the format of the survey question. 180 (See the next section for details). 182 b) SHALL NOT - Question 228, regarding section 9.2.2.2 184 Three vendors (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel), answered "N" to shall 185 not (meaning they did). One vendor (NextHop) indicated "O" 186 matching the specification. 188 Text: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute 189 SHALL NOT be aggregated. 191 c) SHOULD - 2 in appendix F (questions 257, 258) 193 Three vendors said no, one vendor said yes to question 257. 194 All four vendors indicated no to question 258. (Please note 195 that Appendix F is text section for optional support. 197 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 199 Text: Section F.2 - A BGP speaker which needs to withdraw a 200 destination and send an update about a more specific or 201 less specific route SHOULD combine them into the same 202 UPDATE message. 204 Text: Section F.6: The last instance (rightmost occurrence) of 205 that AS number is kept. 207 d) MAY - 1 in section 8.1.2.4, 1 in Section 10 (question 254) 209 Section 8: 3 "No", 1 yes 211 Text: "The Event numbers (1-28) utilized in this state machine 212 description aid in specifying the behavior of the BGP 213 state machine. Implementations MAY use these numbers to 214 provide network management information. The exact form of 215 a FSM or the FSM events are specific to each 216 implementation." 218 Editors note: Section 8.1.2.4 was written to allow existing 219 implementations to transition to the new event 220 numbering. It was expected over time (3 years) 221 that the FSM event numbering would be updated to 222 the new numbering. 224 Section 10: 3 "no" 225 Three vendors answered "no" configurable jitter time values. 226 One vendor indicated a configurable jitter timer value. 228 Text: A given BGP speaker MAY apply the same jitter to each of 229 these quantities regardless of the destinations to 230 which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need 231 not be configured on a "per peer" basis. 233 Question: Is the jitter range configurable? 235 2.1 236 Differences 238 The following section provides a list of sections where all answers 239 were not "yes". This section is provided to allow the reader a short 240 cut to the interesting points. 242 Differences are found in Subsections: 244 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 246 MUST 247 97, 106, 107, 111, 122, 125, 138, 141, 213 249 SHALL 250 233, 239 252 SHALL NOT 253 228 255 SHOULD 256 42, 117, 132, 146, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 257 164, 165, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 202, 225, 250, 255, 256 259 SHOULD NOT 260 226 262 MAY 263 67, 94, 121, 143, 180, 223, 247, 254 265 Other 266 236, 238 268 Linked Questions 270 212/213 272 Question 213 about the aggregation of routes had 3 "N" and 1 273 "Y". Questions 212 and 213 are grouped together. 275 Question 212 states: 276 "The decision process MUST either install both routes" or 277 Question 213: 278 "Aggregate the two routes and install the aggregated route, 279 provided that both routes have the same value of the 280 NEXT_HOP attribute" 282 The four respondents that said "Y" to question 212, said "N" to 283 questions 213. Given the context of the question, the "N" to 284 question 213 is appropriate. 286 2.2 287 Implementations and interoperability 289 Alcatel Cisco Laurel NextHop 290 Alcatel Y Y 291 Cisco Y 292 Laurel Y Y 294 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 296 NextHop Y Y 298 2.3 299 BGP Implementation Identification 301 1.6.0 Alcatel 302 Implementation Name/Version: 303 Alcatel 7750 BGP Implementation Release 1.3 304 Date: July 2003 305 Contact Name: Devendra Raut 306 Contact Email: Devendra.raut@Alcatel.com 308 1.6.1 Cisco 309 Implementation Name/Version: Cisco BGP Implementation, 12.0(27)S 310 Contact Name: Alvaro Retana 311 Date: 11/26/2003 313 1.6.2 Laurel 314 Implementation Name/Version: Laurel Networks 3.0 315 Contact Name: Man 316 ish Vora 317 Contact Email: vora@laurelnetworks.com 318 Date: 2/1/2004 320 1.6.3 NextHop Technologies 321 Implementation Name/Version: Gated NGC 2.0, 2.2 322 Date: January 2004 324 3. 325 BGP4 Implementation Report 327 For every item listed, the respondents indicated whether their 328 implementation supports the Functionality/Description or not (Y/N) 329 according to the RFC2119 [ii] language indicated. Any respondent 330 comments are included. If appropriate, the respondents indicated 331 with O the fact that the support is neither Y/N (an alternate 332 behavior, for example). Refer to the appropriate sections in [BGP4] 333 for additional details. 335 3.0 Summary of Operation / Section 3 337 3.0.1 Base Behavior 339 Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with 340 the base behavior described in this section? 342 RFC2119: N/A 344 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 346 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 347 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 348 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 349 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 351 3.0.2 Local Policy Changes 353 Functionality/Description: To allow local policy changes to have 354 the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP 355 speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the 356 routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of 357 the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension 358 [RFC2918] 360 RFC2119: SHOULD 362 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 363 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 364 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 365 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 367 3.1 368 Routes: Advertisement and Storage / Section 3.1 370 3.1.3 Withdraw routes from service 372 Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the 373 three methods described in this section? 375 RFC2119: N/A 377 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 378 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 379 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 380 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 382 3.1.4 Path attributes 384 Functionality/Description: Added to or modified before 385 advertising the route 387 RFC2119: MAY 389 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 390 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 391 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 393 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 395 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 397 3.2 398 Routing Information Bases / Section 3.2 400 3.2.5 Routing Information Bases 402 Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible 403 with the RIB structure described in this section? 405 RFC2119: N/A 407 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 408 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 409 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 410 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 412 3.2.6 Next Hop Resolution 414 Functionality/Description: The next hop for each route in the 415 Loc-RIB MUST be resolvable via the local BGP speaker's Routing 416 Table 418 RFC2119: MUST 420 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 421 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 422 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 423 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 425 3.3 426 Message Formats / Section 4 428 3.3.7 Message Size 430 Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the 431 message sizes described in this section? 433 RFC2119: N/A 435 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 436 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 437 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 438 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 440 3.4 441 Message Header Format / Section 4.1 443 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 445 3.4.8 Marker 447 Functionality/Description: MUST be set to all ones 449 RFC2119: MUST 451 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 452 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 453 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 454 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 456 3.4.9 Length 458 Functionality/Description: MUST always be at least 19 and no 459 greater than 4096 461 RFC2119: MUST 463 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 464 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 465 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 466 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 468 3.4.10 Length 470 Functionality/Description: MAY be further constrained, depending 471 on the message type 473 RFC2119: MAY 475 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 476 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 477 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 478 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 480 3.4.11 Message "padding" 482 Functionality/Description: No "padding" of extra data after the 483 message is allowed, so the Length field MUST have the smallest 484 value required given the rest of the message 486 RFC2119: MUST 488 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 489 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 490 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 492 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 494 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 496 3.5 497 OPEN Message / Section 4.2 499 3.5.12 Hold Timer Calculation 501 Functionality/Description: Use the smaller of its configured 502 Hold Time and the Hold Time received in the OPEN message 504 RFC2119: MUST 506 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 507 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 508 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 509 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 511 3.5.13 Minimum Hold Time 513 Functionality/Description: MUST be either zero or at least three 514 seconds 516 RFC2119: MUST 518 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 519 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 520 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 521 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 523 3.5.14 Connection Rejection 525 Functionality/Description: Based on the Hold Time 527 RFC2119: MAY 529 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 530 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Sends notification. 531 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 532 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 534 3.6 535 UPDATE Message Format / Section 4.3 537 3.6.15 UPDATE 539 Functionality/Description: Simultaneously advertise a feasible 540 route and withdraw multiple unfeasible routes from service 542 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 544 RFC2119: MAY 546 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 547 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We have capability to process this 548 functionality on receiving end but 549 we don't send feasible & unfeasible 550 simultaneously. 551 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 552 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 554 3.6.16 Transitive Bit Setting 556 Functionality/Description: For well-known attributes, the 557 Transitive bit MUST be set to 1 559 RFC2119: MUST 561 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 562 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 563 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 564 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 566 3.6.17 Partial Bit Setting 568 Functionality/Description: For well-known attributes and for 569 optional non-transitive attributes the Partial bit MUST be set 570 to 0 572 RFC2119: MUST 574 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 575 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 576 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 577 NextHop Y/N/O/C 578 omments: Y 580 3.6.18 Attribute Flags octet sending 582 Functionality/Description: Lower-order four bits set to zero 584 RFC2119: MUST 586 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 587 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 588 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 589 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 591 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 593 3.6.19 Attribute Flags octet receiving 595 Functionality/Description: Lower-order four bits ignored 597 RFC2119: MUST 599 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 600 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 601 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 602 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 604 3.6.20 NEXT_HOP 606 Functionality/Description: Used as the next hop to the 607 destinations listed in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message 609 RFC2119: SHOULD 611 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 612 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 613 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 614 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 616 3.6.21 MULTI_EXIT_DISC 618 Functionality/Description: Used by a BGP speaker's decision 619 process to discriminate among multiple entry points to a 620 neighboring autonomous system 622 RFC2119: MAY 624 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 625 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 626 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 627 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 629 3.6.22 AGGREGATOR IP Address 631 Functionality/Description: Same address as the one used for the 632 BGP Identifier of the speaker 634 RFC2119: SHOULD 636 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default behavior. Can be configured 638 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 640 different from BGP ID. 641 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 642 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 643 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 645 3.6.23 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the 646 WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields 648 Functionality/Description: UPDATE messages SHOULD NOT include 649 that information 651 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 653 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 654 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 655 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 656 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 658 3.6.24 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the 659 WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields 661 Functionality/Description: The BGP speaker MUST be able to handle 662 them 664 RFC2119: MUST 666 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 667 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 668 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 669 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 671 3.6.25 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the 672 WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields 674 Functionality/Description: Treated as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES 675 doesn't contain the address prefix 677 RFC2119: SHOULD 679 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Withdrawn routes are processed 680 before NLRI fields. Hence we get the 681 desired behavior. 682 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 683 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 684 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 686 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 688 3.7 689 KEEPALIVE Message Format / Section 4.4 691 3.7.26 Maximum KEEPALIVE frequency 693 Functionality/Description: Not greater than one second 695 RFC2119: MUST NOT 697 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 698 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 699 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 700 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 702 3.7.27 KEEPALIVE messages rate 704 Functionality/Description: Adjusted as a function of the Hold 705 Time interval 707 RFC2119: MAY 709 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 710 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 711 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 712 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 714 3.7.28 Negotiated Hold Time of 0 716 Functionality/Description: No KEEPALIVEs sent 718 RFC2119: MUST NOT 720 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 721 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 722 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 723 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 725 3.8 726 NOTIFICATION Message Format / Section 4.5 728 3.8.29 NOTIFICATION Message 730 Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the 731 NOTIFICATION Message as described in this section? 733 RFC2119: N/A 735 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 737 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 738 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 739 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 740 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 742 3.9 743 Path Attributes /Section 5 745 3.9.30 Path attributes 747 Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the 748 path attributes as described in this section? 750 RFC2119: N/A 752 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 753 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 754 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 755 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 757 3.9.31 Well-known attributes 759 Functionality/Description: Recognized by all BGP implementations 761 RFC2119: MUST 763 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 764 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 765 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 766 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 768 3.9.32 Mandatory Attributes 770 Functionality/Description: Included in every UPDATE message that 771 contains NLRI 773 RFC2119: MUST 775 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 776 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 777 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 778 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 780 3.9.33/34 Discretionary Attributes 782 Functionality/Description: Sent in a particular UPDATE message 784 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 786 RFC2119: MAY or MAY NOT 788 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 789 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 790 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 791 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 793 3.9.35 Well-known attributes 795 Functionality/Description: Passed along (after proper updating, 796 if necessary) to other BGP peers 798 RFC2119: MUST 800 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 801 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 802 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 803 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 805 3.9.36 Optional Attributes 807 Functionality/Description: In addition to well-known attributes, 808 each path MAY contain one or more optional attributes 810 RFC2119: MAY 812 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 813 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 814 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 815 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 817 3.9.37 Unrecognized transitive optional attributes 819 Functionality/Description: Accepted 821 RFC2119: SHOULD 823 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 824 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 825 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 826 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 828 3.9.38 Partial Bit for unrecognized transitive optional attributes 830 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 832 Functionality/Description: Set to 1 if the attribute is accepted 833 and pa 834 ssed to other BGP speakers 836 RFC2119: MUST 838 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 839 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 840 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 841 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 843 3.9.39 Unrecognized non-transitive optional attributes 845 Functionality/Description: Quietly ignored and not passed along 846 to other BGP peers 848 RFC2119: MUST 850 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 851 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 852 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 853 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 855 3.9.40 New transitive optional attributes 857 Functionality/Description: Attached to the path by the 858 originator or by any other BGP speaker in the path 860 RFC2119: MAY 862 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 863 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 864 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 865 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 867 3.9.41 Optional Attributes 869 Functionality/Description: Updated by BGP speakers in the path 871 RFC2119: MAY 873 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 874 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 875 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 876 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 878 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 880 3.9.42 Path Attributes 882 Functionality/Description: Ordered in ascending order of 883 attribute type 885 RFC2119: SHOULD 887 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 888 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O All attributes are ordered in 889 ascending order except Extended 890 Community, which is type 16 but we 891 send it out after community 892 attribute. 893 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y except for MBGP which is always last 894 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 896 3.9.43 Out of order received path attributes 898 Functionality/Description: Receiver MUST be able to handle 900 RFC2119: MUST 902 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 903 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 904 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 905 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 907 3.9.44 Mandatory Attributes 909 Functionality/Description: Present in all exchanges if NLRI are 910 contained in the UPDATE message 912 RFC2119: MUST 914 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 915 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 916 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 917 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 919 3.10 920 ORIGIN / Section 5.1.1 922 3.10.45 ORIGIN 924 Functionality/Description: Value SHOULD NOT be changed by any 925 speaker, except the originator 927 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 929 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 931 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 932 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 933 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 934 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 936 3.11 937 AS_PATH / Section 5.1.2 939 3.11.46 AS_PATH 941 Functionality/Description: Not modified when advertising a route 942 to an internal peer 944 RFC2119: SHALL NOT 946 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 947 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 948 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 949 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 951 3.11.47 Segment Overflow 953 Functionality/Description: If the act of prepending will cause 954 an overflow in the AS_PATH segment, i.e. more than 255 ASs, it 955 SHOULD prepend a new segment of type AS_SEQUENCE and prepend its 956 own AS number to this new segment 958 RFC2119: SHOULD 960 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 961 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 962 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 963 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 965 3.11.48 Prepending 967 Functionality/Description: The local system MAY include/prepend 968 more than one instance of its own AS number in the AS_PATH 969 attribute 971 RFC2119: MAY 973 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 974 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 975 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 977 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 979 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 981 3.12 982 NEXT_HOP / Section 5.1.3 984 3.12.49 NEXT_HOP 986 Functionality/Description: Used as the next hop to the 987 destinations listed in the UPDATE message 989 RFC2119: SHOULD 991 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 992 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 993 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 994 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 996 3.12.50 NEXT_HOP 998 Functionality/Description: When sending a message to an internal 999 peer, if the route is not locally originated, the BGP speaker 1000 SHOULD NOT modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been 1001 explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the 1002 NEXT_HOP 1004 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 1006 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1007 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1008 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1009 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1011 3.12.51 NEXT_HOP 1013 Functionality/Description: When announcing a locally originated 1014 route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker SHOULD use as the 1015 NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the 1016 announced network is reachable for the speaker 1018 RFC2119: SHOULD 1020 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1021 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1022 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1023 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1025 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1027 3.12.52 NEXT_HOP 1029 Functionality/Description: If the route is directly connected to 1030 the speaker, or the interface address of the router through 1031 which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the 1032 internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker SHOULD use for the 1033 NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the 1034 interface that is used to reach the peer) 1036 RFC2119: SHOULD 1038 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1039 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1040 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1041 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1043 3.12.53 "first party" NEXT_HOP 1045 Functionality/Description: If the external peer to which the 1046 route is being advertised shares a common subnet with one of the 1047 interfaces of the announcing BGP speaker, the speaker MAY use 1048 the IP address associated with such an interface in the NEXT_HOP 1049 attribute 1051 RFC2119: MAY 1053 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1054 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1055 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1056 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1058 3.12.54 Default NEXT_HOP 1060 Functionality/Description: IP address of the interface that the 1061 speaker uses to establish the BGP connection to peer X 1063 RFC2119: SHOULD 1065 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1066 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1067 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1068 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1070 3.12.55 NEXT_HOP Propagation 1072 Functionality/Description: The speaker MAY be configured to 1074 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1076 propagate the NEXT_HOP attribute. In this case when advertising 1077 a route that the speaker learned from one of its peers, the 1078 NEXT_HOP attribute of the advertised route is exactly th 1079 e same 1080 as the NEXT_HOP attribute of the learned route (the speaker just 1081 doesn't modify the NEXT_HOP attribute) 1083 RFC2119: MAY 1085 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O 1086 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1087 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1088 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1090 3.12.56 Third party NEXT_HOP 1092 Functionality/Description: MUST be able to support disabling it 1094 RFC2119: MUST 1096 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1097 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1098 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1099 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1101 3.12.57 NEXT_HOP 1103 Functionality/Description: A route originated by a BGP speaker 1104 SHALL NOT be advertised to a peer using an address of that peer 1105 as NEXT_HOP 1107 RFC2119: SHALL NOT 1109 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1110 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1111 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1112 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1114 3.12.58 NEXT_HOP 1116 Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker SHALL NOT install a 1117 route with itself as the next hop 1119 RFC2119: SHALL NOT 1121 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1122 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1124 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1126 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1127 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1129 3.12.59 NEXT_HOP 1131 Functionality/Description: Used to determine the actual outbound 1132 interface and immediate next-hop address that SHOULD be used to 1133 forward transit packets to the associated destinations 1135 RFC2119: SHOULD 1137 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1138 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1139 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1140 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1142 3.12.60 Resolved NEXT_HOP IP Address 1144 Functionality/Description: If the entry specifies an attached 1145 subnet, but does not specify a next-hop address, then the 1146 address in the NEXT_HOP attribute SHOULD be used as the 1147 immediate next-hop address 1149 RFC2119: SHOULD 1151 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1152 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1153 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1154 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1156 3.12.61 Resolved NEXT_HOP IP Address 1158 Functionality/Description: If the entry also specifies the 1159 next-hop address, this address SHOULD be used as the immediate 1160 next-hop address for packet forwarding 1162 RFC2119: SHOULD 1164 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1165 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1166 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1167 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1169 3.13 1170 MULTI_EXIT_DISC / Section 5.1.4 1172 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1174 3.13.62 Preferred metric 1176 Functionality/Description: Lowest value 1178 RFC2119: SHOULD 1180 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1181 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1182 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1183 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1185 3.13.63 MULTI_EXIT_DISC 1187 Functionality/Description: If received over EBGP, the 1188 MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY be propagated over IBGP to other 1189 BGP speakers within the same AS 1191 RFC2119: MAY 1193 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1194 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1195 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1196 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1198 3.13.64 MULTI_EXIT_DISC 1200 Functionality/Description: If received from a neighboring AS, it 1201 MUST NOT be propagated to other neighboring ASes 1203 RFC2119: MUST NOT 1205 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1206 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1207 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1208 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1210 3.13.65 Remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC 1212 Functionality/Description: Local configuration mechanism to 1213 remove the attribute from a route 1215 RFC2119: MUST 1217 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1218 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1219 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1221 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1223 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1225 3.13.66 Remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC 1227 Functionality/Description: Done prior to determining the degree 1228 of preference of the route and performing route selection 1230 RFC2119: MAY 1232 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1233 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1234 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1235 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1237 3.13.67 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Alteration 1239 Functionality/Description: An implementation MAY also (based on 1240 local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC 1241 attribute received over EBGP 1243 RFC2119: MAY 1245 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O 1246 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1247 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1248 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1250 3.13.68 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Alteration 1252 Functionality/Description: Done prior to determining the degree 1253 of preference of the route and performing route selection 1255 RFC2119: MAY 1257 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1258 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1259 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1260 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1262 3.14 1263 LOCAL_PREF / Section 5.1.5 1265 3.14.69 LOCAL_PREF 1267 Functionality/Description: Included in all UPDATE messages that 1268 a given BGP speaker sends to the other internal peers 1270 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1272 RFC2119: SHALL 1274 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1275 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1276 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1277 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1279 3.14.70 Degree of Preference 1281 Functionality/Description: Calculated for each external route 1282 based on the locally configured policy, and included when 1283 advertising a route to its internal peers 1285 RFC2119: SHALL 1287 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1288 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1289 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1290 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1292 3.14.71 LOCAL_PREF 1294 Functionality/Description: Higher degree of preference MUST be 1295 preferred 1297 RFC2119: MUST 1299 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1300 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1301 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1302 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1304 3.14.72 LOCAL_PREF 1306 Functionality/Description: Not included in UPDATE messages sent 1307 to external peers, except for the case of BGP Confederations 1308 [RFC3065] 1310 RFC2119: MUST NOT 1312 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1313 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1314 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1315 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1317 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1319 3.14.73 LOCAL_PREF 1321 Functionality/Description: Ignored if received from an external 1322 peer, except for the case of BGP Confederations [RFC3065] 1324 RFC2119: MUST 1326 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1327 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1328 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1329 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1331 3.15 1332 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE / Section 5.1.6 1334 3.15.74 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 1336 Functionality/Description: Included if an aggregate excludes at 1337 least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the 1338 routes 1339 that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET 1341 RFC2119: SHOULD 1343 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1344 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1345 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1346 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1348 3.15.75 Received ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 1350 Functionality/Description: BGP speaker SHOULD NOT remove the 1351 attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers 1353 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 1355 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1356 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1357 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1358 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1360 3.15.76 Received ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 1362 Functionality/Description: BGP speaker MUST NOT make any NLRI of 1363 that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4) 1365 RFC2119: MUST NOT 1367 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1369 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1370 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1371 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1372 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1374 3.16 1375 AGGREGATOR / Section 5.1.7 1377 3.16.77 AGGREGATOR 1379 Functionality/Description: Included in updates which are formed 1380 by aggregation (see Section 9.2.2.2) 1382 RFC2119: MAY 1384 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1385 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1386 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1387 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1389 3.16.78 AGGREGATOR 1391 Functionality/Description: Added by the BGP speaker performing 1392 route aggregation 1394 RFC2119: MAY 1396 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1397 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1398 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1399 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1401 3.16.79 AGGREGATOR 1403 Functionality/Description: Contain local AS number and IP 1404 address 1406 RFC2119: SHALL 1408 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default behavior. Can be configured 1409 different from BGP ID. 1410 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1411 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1412 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1414 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1416 3.16.80 AGGREGATOR IP Address 1418 Functionality/Description: The same as the BGP Identifier of the 1419 speaker 1421 RFC2119: SHOULD 1423 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1424 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1425 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1426 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1428 3.17 1429 BGP Error Handling / Section 6 1431 3.17.81 Error Handling 1433 Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible 1434 with the error handling procedures described in this section? 1436 RFC2119: N/A 1438 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1439 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1440 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1441 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1443 3.17.82 Error Subcode 1445 Functionality/Description: Zero, if it is not specified 1447 RFC2119: MUST 1449 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1450 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1451 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1452 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1454 3.18 1455 Message Header Error Handling / Section 6.1 1457 3.18.83 Message Header Errors 1459 Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the NOTIFICATION 1460 message with Error Code Message Header Error 1462 RFC2119: MUST 1464 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1466 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1467 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1468 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1469 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1471 3.18.84 Synchronization Error 1473 Functionality/Description: Error Subcode MUST be set to 1474 Connection Not Synchronized 1476 RFC2119: MUST 1478 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1479 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1480 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1481 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1483 3.18.85 Message Length 1485 Functionality/Description: Use the Bad Message Length Error 1486 Subcode to indicate an incorrect message length 1488 RFC2119: MUST 1490 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1491 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1492 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1493 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1495 3.18.86 Bad Message Length 1497 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1498 erroneous Lentgh field 1500 RFC2119: MUST 1502 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1503 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1504 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1505 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1507 3.18.87 Type Field 1509 Functionality/Description: If the Type field of the message 1510 header is not recognized, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to 1512 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1514 Bad Message Type 1516 RFC2119: MUST 1518 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1519 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1520 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1521 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1523 3.18.88 Bad Message Type 1525 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1526 erroneous Type field 1528 RFC2119: MUST 1530 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1531 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1532 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1533 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1535 3.19 1536 OPEN message error handling / Section 6.2 1538 3.19.89 OPEN Message Errors 1540 Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the NOTIFICATION 1541 message with Error Code OPEN Message Error 1543 RFC2119: MUST 1545 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1546 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1547 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1548 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1550 3.19.90 Version Number not Supported 1552 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 1553 Unsupported Version Number 1555 RFC2119: MUST 1557 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1558 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1559 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1560 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1562 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1564 3.19.91 Unnacceptable Autonomous System Field 1566 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad 1567 Peer AS 1569 RFC2119: MUST 1571 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1572 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1573 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1574 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1576 3.19.92 Unacceptable Hold Time Error Subcode 1578 Functionality/Description: Used if the Hold Time field of the 1579 OPEN message is unacceptable 1581 RFC2119: MUST 1583 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1584 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1585 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1586 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1588 3.19.93 Hold Time Rejection 1590 Functionality/Description: Values of one or two seconds 1592 RFC2119: MUST 1594 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1595 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1596 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1597 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1599 3.19.94 Hold Time Rejection 1601 Functionality/Description: An implementation may reject any 1602 proposed Hold Time 1604 RFC2119: MAY 1606 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1607 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1609 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 O 1610 ctober 2004 1612 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 1613 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1615 3.19.95 Hold Time 1617 Functionality/Description: If accepted, then the negotiated 1618 value MUST be used 1620 RFC2119: MUST 1622 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1623 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1624 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1625 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1627 3.19.96 Syntactically Incorrect BGP Identifier 1629 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad 1630 BGP Identifier 1632 RFC2119: MUST 1634 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1635 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1636 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1637 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1639 3.19.97 Not recognized Optional Parameters 1641 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 1642 Unsupported Optional Parameters 1644 RFC2119: MUST 1646 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1647 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We may fix this. 1648 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1649 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1651 3.19.98 Recognized but Malformed Optional Parameters 1653 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 0 1654 (Unspecific) 1656 RFC2119: MUST 1658 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1660 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1661 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 1662 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1663 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1665 3.20 1666 UPDATE message error handling / Section 6.3 1668 3.20.99 UPDATE Message Errors 1670 Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the 1671 NOTIFICATION message with Error Code UPDATE Message Error 1673 RFC2119: MUST 1675 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1676 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1677 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1678 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1680 3.20.100 Too Large 1682 Functionality/Description: If the Withdrawn Routes Length or 1683 Total Attribute Length is too large, then the Error Subcode MUST 1684 be set to Malformed Attribute List 1686 RFC2119: MUST 1688 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1689 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1690 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1691 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1693 3.20.101 Conflicting Flags 1695 Functionality/Description: If any recognized attribute has 1696 Attribute Flags that conflict with the Attribute Type Code, then 1697 the Error Subcode MUST be set to Attribute Flags Error 1699 RFC2119: MUST 1701 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1702 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1703 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1704 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1706 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1708 3.20.102 Conflicting Flags 1710 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1711 erroneous attribute 1713 RFC2119: MUST 1715 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1716 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1717 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1718 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1720 3.20.103 Conflicting Length 1722 Functionality/Description: If any recognized attribute has 1723 Attribute Length that conflicts with the expected length, then 1724 the Error Subcode MUST be set to Attribute Length Error 1726 RFC2119: MUST 1728 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1729 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1730 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1731 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1733 3.20.104 Conflicting Length 1735 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1736 erroneous attribute 1738 RFC2119: MUST 1740 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1741 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1742 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1743 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1745 3.20.105 Missing Mandatory Well-Known Attributes 1747 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 1748 Missing Well-known Attribute 1750 RFC2119: MUST 1752 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1754 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1756 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1757 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1758 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1760 3.20.106 Missing Mandatory Well-Known Attributes 1762 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1763 Attribute Type Code of the missing well-known attribute 1765 RFC2119: MUST 1767 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1768 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We plan to fix this in future. 1769 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1770 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1772 3.20.107 Unrecognized Mandatory Well-Known Attributes 1774 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 1775 Unrecognized Well-known Attribute 1777 RFC2119: MUST 1779 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1780 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We set error subcode to Attribute 1781 Flags Error, but we intend to 1782 correct this soon. 1783 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1784 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1786 3.20.108 Unrecognized Mandatory Well-Known Attributes 1788 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1789 unrecognized attribute 1791 RFC2119: MUST 1793 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1794 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1795 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1796 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1798 3.20.109 Undefined ORIGIN 1800 Functionality/Description: The Error Sub-code MUST be set to 1801 Invalid Origin Attribute 1803 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1805 RFC2119: MUST 1807 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1808 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1809 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1810 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1812 3.20.110 Undefined ORIGIN 1814 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1815 unrecognized attribute 1817 RFC2119: MUST 1819 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1820 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1821 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1822 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1824 3.20.111 Syntactically Incorrect NEXT_HOP 1826 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 1827 Invalid NEXT_HOP Attribute 1829 RFC2119: MUST 1831 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1832 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Ignores the prefix in case of 1833 martian nexthop, and in case of 1834 length not equal to IPv4 1835 address-length, we send 1836 NOTIFICATION with error subcode 1837 Attribute Length error. 1838 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1839 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1841 3.20.112 Syntactically Incorrect NEXT_HOP 1843 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 1844 incorrect attribute 1846 RFC2119: MUST 1848 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1849 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1851 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1853 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1854 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1856 3.20.113 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness 1858 Functionality/Description: NEXT_HOP is checked for semantic 1859 correctness against the criteria in this section 1861 RFC2119: MUST 1863 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1864 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1865 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1866 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1868 3.20.114 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness 1870 Functionality/Description: Not be the IP address of the 1871 receiving speaker 1873 RFC2119: MUST NOT 1875 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1876 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1877 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1878 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1880 3.20.115 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness 1882 Functionality/Description: In the case of an EBGP where the 1883 sender and receiver are one IP hop away from each other, either 1884 the IP address in the NEXT_HOP MUST be the sender's IP address 1885 (that is used to establish the BGP connection), or the interface 1886 associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address MUST share a common 1887 subnet with the receiving BGP speaker 1889 RFC2119: MUST 1891 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1892 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1893 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1894 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1896 3.20.116 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP 1898 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1900 Functionality/Description: Error logged 1902 RFC2119: SHOULD 1904 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1905 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1906 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1907 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1909 3.20.117 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP 1911 Functionality/Description: Route Ignored 1913 RFC2119: SHOULD 1915 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1916 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1917 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 1918 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1920 3.20.118 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP 1922 Functionality/Description: NOTIFICATION not sent 1924 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 1926 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1927 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1928 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1929 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1931 3.20.119 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP 1933 Functionality/Description: Connection not closed 1935 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 1937 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1938 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1939 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1940 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1942 3.20.120 Syntactically Incorrect AS_PATH 1944 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 1946 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1948 Malformed AS_PATH 1950 RFC2119: MUST 1952 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1953 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1954 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1955 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1957 3.20.121 First Neighbor in AS_PATH check 1959 Functionality/Description: If the UPDATE message is received 1960 from an external peer, the local system MAY check whether the 1961 leftmost AS in the AS_PATH attribute is equal to the autonomous 1962 system number of the peer that sent the message 1964 RFC2119: MAY 1966 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1967 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1968 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 1969 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1971 3.20.122 First Neighbor in AS_PATH check 1973 Functionality/Description: If the check determines that this is 1974 not the case, the Error Subcode MUST be set to Malformed AS_PATH 1976 RFC2119: MUST 1978 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1979 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1980 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a 1981 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1983 3.20.123 Optional Attributes 1985 Functionality/Description: Value MUST be checked if the 1986 attribute is recognized 1988 RFC2119: MUST 1990 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1991 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1992 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1993 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 1995 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 1997 3.20.124 Optional Attribute Error 1999 Functionality/Description: The attribute MUST be discarded 2001 RFC2119: MUST 2003 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2004 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2005 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2006 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2008 3.20.125 Optional Attribute Error 2010 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 2011 Optional Attribute Error 2013 RFC2119: MUST 2015 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2016 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N What exactly is optional attribute 2017 e.g If error is flag related, we send 2018 update flag error subcode, if it is 2019 length related, we send update length 2020 error subcode. These granular 2021 subcodes are better in terms of 2022 debugging than optional attribute 2023 error. 2024 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2025 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Only optional attribute error that 2026 doesn't have a more specific error, 2027 is the version 3 to version 4 error 2028 for the atomic aggregate. All others 2029 default to more specific error codes 2030 if implementation. 2032 3.20.126 Optional Attribute Error 2034 Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the 2035 attribute 2037 RFC2119: MUST 2039 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2040 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2041 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2043 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2045 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2047 3.20.127 Duplicate Attributes 2049 Functionality/Description: If any attribute appears more than 2050 once in the UPDATE message, then the Error Subcode MUST be set 2051 to Malformed Attribute List 2053 RFC2119: MUST 2055 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2056 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2057 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2058 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2060 3.20.128 Syntactically Incorrect NLRI Field 2062 Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 2063 Invalid Network Field 2065 RFC2119: MUST 2067 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2068 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2069 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2070 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2072 3.20.129 Semantically Incorrect NLRI Field 2074 Functionality/Description: An error SHOULD be logged locally 2076 RFC2119: SHOULD 2078 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2079 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2080 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2081 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2083 3.20.130 Semantically Incorrect NLRI Field 2085 Functionality/Description: The prefix SHOULD be ignored 2087 RFC2119: SHOULD 2089 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2091 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2093 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2094 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2095 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2097 3.20.131 UPDATE with no NLRI 2099 Functionality/Description: An UPDATE message that contains 2100 correct path attributes, but no NLRI, SHALL be treated as a 2101 valid UPDATE message 2103 RFC2119: SHALL 2105 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2106 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2107 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2108 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2110 3.21 2111 NOTIFICATION message error handling / Section 6.4 2113 3.21.132 Error in NOTIFICATION message 2115 Functionality/Description: Noticed, logged locally, and brought 2116 to the attention of the administration of the peer 2118 RFC2119: SHOULD 2120 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2121 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 2122 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2123 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2125 3.22 2126 Hold Timer Expired error handling / Section 6.5 2128 3.22.133 Hold Timer Expired 2130 Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible 2131 with the error handling procedures described in this section? 2133 RFC2119: N/A 2135 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2136 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2137 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2138 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2140 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2142 3.23 2143 Finite State Machine error handling / Section 6.6 2145 3.23.134 Finite State Machine Errors 2147 Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible 2148 with the error handling procedures described in this section? 2150 RFC2119: N/A 2152 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2153 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 2154 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2155 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2157 3.24 2158 Cease / Section 6.7 2160 3.24.135 Cease NOTIFICATION 2162 Functionality/Description: Used in absence of any fatal errors 2163 if a BGP peer chooses at any given time to close its BGP 2164 connection 2166 RFC2119: MAY 2168 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2169 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We close the TCP session without 2170 CEASE NOTIFICATION. 2171 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2172 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2174 3.24.136 Cease NOTIFICATION 2176 Functionality/Description: Not used for specified fatal errors 2178 RFC2119: MUST NOT 2180 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2181 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2182 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2183 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2185 3.24.137 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is 2186 willing to accept from a neighbor 2188 Functionality/Description: Support by local configuration 2190 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2192 RFC2119: MAY 2194 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2195 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2196 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2197 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2199 3.24.138 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is 2200 willing to accept from a neighbor 2202 Functionality/Description: If exceeded and the BGP speaker 2203 decides to terminate its BGP connection, the Cease NOTIFICATION 2204 MUST be used 2206 RFC2119: MUST 2208 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2209 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We don't send CEASE but we plan to 2210 correct that soon. 2211 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2212 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y No termination of peers is supported 2213 We are considering support with the 2214 maximum prefix draft for later 2215 releases. 2217 3.24.139 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is 2218 willing to accept from a neighbor 2220 Functionality/Description: Log locally 2222 RFC2119: MAY 2224 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2225 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2226 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2227 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2229 3.25 2230 BGP connection collision detection / Section 6.8 2232 3.25.140 Connection Collision 2234 Functionality/Description: One of the connections MUST be closed 2236 RFC2119: MUST 2238 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2240 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2242 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2243 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2244 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2246 3.25.141 Receipt of an OPEN message 2248 Functionality/Description: The local system MUST examine all of 2249 its connections that are in the OpenConfirm state 2251 RFC2119: MUST 2253 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2254 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We detect collision through some 2255 other implementation specific way 2256 and resolve by method specified in 2257 draft. 2258 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2259 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2261 3.25.142 Receipt of an OPEN message 2263 Functionality/Description: Examine connections in an OpenSent 2264 state if it knows the BGP Identifier of the peer by means 2265 outside of the protocol 2267 RFC2119: MAY 2269 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2270 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2271 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2272 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2274 3.26 2275 BGP Version Negotiation / Section 7 2277 3.26.143 Version Negotiation 2279 Functionality/Description: Multiple attempts to open a BGP 2280 connection, starting with the highest version number each 2281 supports 2283 RFC2119: MAY 2285 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Supports only version 4 2286 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We resolve it through config. If 2287 Config is for version 3, and we get 2288 version 4, OPEN will always fail. 2290 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2292 Similarly, if configed (default) is 2293 version 4 and peers configured is 3, 2294 we don't try to negotiate version 3 2295 unless we have configured it. 2296 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2297 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N Supports only version 4. 2299 3.26.144 Future versions of BGP 2301 Functionality/Description: MUST retain the format of the OPEN 2302 and NOTIFICATION messages 2304 RFC2119: MUST 2306 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2307 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2308 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2309 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2311 3.27 2312 BGP Finite State machine (FSM) / Section 8 2314 3.27.145 FSM 2316 Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible 2317 with the conceptual FSM described in this section? 2319 RFC2119: N/A 2321 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2322 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2323 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2324 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2326 3.28 2327 Administrative Events / Section 8.1.2 2329 3.28.146 Optional Session Attribute Settings 2331 Functionality/Description: Each event has an indication of what 2332 optional session attributes SHOULD be set at each stage 2334 RFC2119: SHOULD 2336 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2337 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Its rather vague. We have an option 2338 Of manually starting or stopping 2339 sessions but not an option for all 2341 draft-iet 2342 f-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2344 optional session attributes that are 2345 listed in draft. 2346 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2347 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y The following optional attributes 2348 are implied in this implementation: 2349 1) Automatic start, 2) Automatic 2350 Stop, 3) 2352 3.28.147 Event1: ManualStart 2354 Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute 2355 SHOULD be set to FALSE 2357 RFC2119: SHOULD 2359 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2360 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2361 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2362 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2364 3.28.148 Event3: AutomaticStart 2366 Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute 2367 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2369 RFC2119: SHOULD 2371 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2372 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2373 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2374 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2376 3.28.149 Event3: AutomaticStart 2378 Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment optional 2379 session attribute SHOULD be set to FALSE 2381 RFC2119: SHOULD 2383 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2384 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2385 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2386 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2388 3.28.150 Event3: AutomaticStart 2390 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2392 Functionality/Description: DampPeerOscillations SHOULD be set to 2393 FALSE 2395 RFC2119: SHOULD 2397 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2398 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2399 attribute, so it is always FALSE. 2400 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2401 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2403 3.28.151 Event4: ManualStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2405 Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute 2406 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2408 RFC2119: SHOULD 2410 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2411 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y We wait for some fixed time before 2412 initiating OPEN. 2413 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2414 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2416 3.28.152 Event4: ManualStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2418 Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute 2419 SHOULD be set to FALSE 2421 RFC2119: SHOULD 2423 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2424 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2425 attribute so it is FALSE. 2426 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2427 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O We don't support DampPeerOscilation 2428 attribute with a setting of off, and 2429 hence Event 4. Future version will 2430 support Event 4 2432 3.28.153 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2434 Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute 2435 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2437 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2439 RFC2119: SHOULD 2441 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2442 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2443 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2444 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2446 3.28.154 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2448 Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute 2449 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2451 RFC2119: SHOULD 2453 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2454 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2455 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2456 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2458 3.28.155 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2460 Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations SHOULD be 2461 set to FALSE 2463 RFC2119: SHOULD 2465 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2466 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2467 attribute, so always FALSE. 2468 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2469 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O We don't support DampPeerOscilation 2470 attribute with a setting of off, and 2471 hence Event 5. Future version will 2472 support Event 5 2474 3.28.156 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations 2476 Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute 2477 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2479 RFC2119: SHOULD 2481 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2482 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2483 attribute. 2484 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2486 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2488 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2490 3.28.157 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations 2492 Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute 2493 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2495 RFC2119: SHOULD 2497 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2498 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2499 attribute. 2500 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2501 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2503 3.28.158 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations 2505 Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute 2506 SHOULD be set to FALSE 2508 RFC2119: SHOULD 2510 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2511 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2512 attribute and hence Event6. 2513 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2514 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2516 3.28.159 Event 7: 2517 AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2519 Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute 2520 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2522 RFC2119: SHOULD 2524 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2525 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2526 attribute and hence Event7 2527 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2528 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2530 3.28.160 Event 7: 2531 AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2533 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2535 Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute 2536 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2538 RFC2119: SHOULD 2540 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2541 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2542 attribute and hence Event7 2543 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2544 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2546 3.28.161 Event 7: 2547 AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment 2549 Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute 2550 SHOULD be set to TRUE 2552 RFC2119: SHOULD 2554 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2555 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2556 attribute and hence Event7 2557 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2558 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2560 3.28.162 Event8: AutomaticStop 2562 Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStop attribute 2563 SH 2564 OULD be TRUE 2566 RFC2119: SHOULD 2568 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2569 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2570 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2571 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2573 3.29 2574 Timer Events / Section 8.1.3 2576 3.29.163 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires 2578 Functionality/Description: DelayOpen attribute SHOULD be set to 2579 TRUE 2581 RFC2119: SHOULD 2583 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2585 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2586 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2587 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a 2588 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2590 3.29.164 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires 2592 Functionality/Description: DelayOpenTime attribute SHOULD be 2593 supported 2595 RFC2119: SHOULD 2597 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2598 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2599 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a 2600 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2602 3.29.165 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires 2604 Functionality/Description: DelayOpenTimer SHOULD be supported 2606 RFC2119: SHOULD 2608 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2609 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2610 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a 2611 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2613 3.29.166 Event13: IdleHoldTimer_Expires 2615 Functionality/Description: DampPeerOscillations attribute SHOULD 2616 be set to TRUE 2618 RFC2119: SHOULD 2620 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2621 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2622 attribute and hence Event13 2623 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2624 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2626 3.29.167 Event13: IdleHoldTimer_Expires 2628 Functionality/Description: IdleHoldTimer SHOULD have just 2629 expired 2631 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2633 RFC2119: SHOULD 2635 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2636 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations 2637 attribute and hence Event13 2638 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2639 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2641 3.30 2642 TCP Connection based Events / Section 8.1.4 2644 3.30.168 Event14: TcpConnection_Valid 2646 Functionality/Description: BGP's destination port SHOULD be port 2647 179 2649 RFC2119: SHOULD 2651 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2652 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2653 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2654 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2656 3.30.169 Event14: TcpConnection_Valid 2658 Functionality/Description: The TrackTcpState attribute SHOULD be 2659 set to TRUE 2661 RFC2119: SHOULD 2663 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2664 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2665 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2666 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 provides hooks for 2667 the TCP state tracking, but use of 2668 this option depends OS support. 2669 Future versions will have additional 2670 hooks. 2672 3.30.170 Event15: Tcp_CR_Invalid 2674 Functionality/Description: BGP destination port number SHOULD be 2675 179 2677 RFC2119: SHOULD 2679 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2681 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2682 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2683 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2684 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 provides hooks for 2685 the TCP state tracking, but use of 2686 this option depends OS support. 2687 Future versions will have additional 2688 hooks. 2690 3.31 2691 BGP Messages based Events / Seciton 8.1.5 2693 3.31.171 Event19: BGPOpen 2695 Functionality/Description: The DelayOpen optional attribute 2696 SHOULD be set to FALSE 2698 RFC2119: SHOULD 2700 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2701 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2702 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a 2703 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2705 3.31.172 Event19: BGPOpen 2707 Functionality/Description: The DelayOpenTimer SHOULD not be 2708 running 2710 RFC2119: SHOULD 2712 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2713 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2714 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2715 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2717 3.31.173 Event20: BGPOpen with DelayOpenTimer running 2719 Functionality/Description: The DelayOpen attribute SHOULD be set 2720 to TRUE 2722 RFC2119: SHOULD 2724 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Not applicable 2725 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2726 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a 2727 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2729 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2731 3.31.174 Event20: BGPOpen with DelayOpenTimer running 2733 Functionality/Description: The DelayOpenTimer SHOULD be running 2735 RFC2119: SHOULD 2737 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2738 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2739 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a 2740 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2742 3.31.175 Event23: OpenCollisionDump 2744 Functionality/Description: If the state machine is to process 2745 this event in Established state, the 2746 CollisionDetectEstablishedState optional attribute SHOULD be set 2747 to TRUE 2749 RFC2119: SHOULD 2751 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Collision detection event is logged. 2752 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We always detect collision before we 2753 go to established state. 2754 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2755 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 does not support 2756 Collision Detection in Established 2757 state. This option attribute is 2758 always set to FALSE. 2760 3.32 2761 FSM Definition / Section 8.2.1 2763 3.32.176 FSM 2765 Functionality/Description: Separate FSM for each configured peer 2767 RFC2119: MUST 2769 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2770 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2771 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2772 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2774 3.32.177 TCP Port 179 2776 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2778 Functionality/Description: A BGP implementation MUST connect to 2779 and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition 2780 to trying to connect to peers 2782 RFC2119: MUST 2784 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2785 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2786 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2787 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2789 3.32.178 Incoming Connections 2791 Functionality/Description: A state machine MUST be instantiated 2793 RFC2119: MUST 2795 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2796 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2797 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2798 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2800 3.33 2801 FSM and collision detection / Section 8.2.1.2 2803 3.33.179 Connection Collision 2805 Functionality/Description: The corresponding FSM for the 2806 connection that is closed SHOULD be disposed of 2808 RFC2119: SHOULD 2810 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2811 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2812 Laurel 2813 Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2814 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2816 3.34 2817 FSM Event numbers / Section 8.2.1.4 2819 3.34.180 Event Numbers 2821 Functionality/Description: Used to provide network management 2822 information 2824 RFC2119: MAY 2826 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Not visible to operator. 2828 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2830 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 2831 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 2832 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N Future Release of GateD NGC may 2833 support event numbers. 2835 3.35 2836 Finite State Machine / Section 8.2.2 2838 3.35.181 ConnectRetryTimer 2840 Functionality/Description: Sufficiently large to allow TCP 2841 initialization 2843 RFC2119: SHOULD 2845 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2846 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2847 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2848 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2850 3.35.182 2nd connection tracking 2852 Functionality/Description: In response to a TCP connection 2853 succeeds [Event 16 or Event 17], the 2nd connection SHALL be 2854 tracked until it sends an OPEN message 2856 RFC2119: SHALL 2858 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2859 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2860 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2861 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2863 3.36 2864 UPDATE Message Handling / Section 9 2866 3.36.183 UPDATE Message Handling 2868 Functionality/Description: Does your implementation handle 2869 UPDATE messages in a manner compatible to the description in 2870 this section? 2872 RFC2119: N/A 2874 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2875 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2876 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2878 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2880 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2882 3.36.184 WITHDRAWN ROUTES 2884 Functionality/Description: Any previously advertised routes 2885 whose destinations are contained in this field SHALL be removed 2886 from the Adj-RIB-In 2888 RFC2119: SHALL 2890 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2891 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2892 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2893 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2895 3.36.185 WITHDRAWN ROUTES 2897 Functionality/Description: The BGP speaker SHALL run its 2898 Decision Process since the previously advertised route is no 2899 longer available for use 2901 RFC2119: SHALL 2903 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2904 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2905 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2906 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2908 3.36.186 Implicit withdraw 2910 Functionality/Description: If an UPDATE message contains a 2911 feasible route, and the NLRI of the new route is identical to 2912 the one of a route currently stored in the Adj-RIB-In, then the 2913 new route SHALL replace the older route 2915 RFC2119: SHALL 2917 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2918 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2919 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2920 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2922 3.36.187 Other feasible routes 2924 Functionality/Description: If an UPDATE message contains a 2926 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2928 feasible route, and the NLRI of the new route is not identical 2929 to the one of any route currently stored in the Adj-RIB-In, then 2930 the new route SHALL be placed in the Adj-RIB-In 2932 RFC2119: SHALL 2934 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2935 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2936 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2937 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2939 3.36.188 Adj-RIB-In Update 2941 Functionality/Description: Once a BGP speaker updates the 2942 Adj-RIB-In, it SHALL run its Decision Process 2944 RFC2119: SHALL 2946 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2947 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2948 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2949 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2951 3.37 2952 Decision Process / Section 9.1 2954 3.37.189 Decision Process 2956 Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible 2957 with the description in this section? 2959 RFC2119: N/A 2961 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2962 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2963 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2964 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2966 3.37.190 Degree of Preference 2968 Functionality/Description: SHALL NOT use as its inputs any of 2969 the following: the existence of other routes, the non-existence 2970 of other routes, or the path attributes of other routes 2972 RFC2119: SHALL NOT 2974 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2976 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 2978 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2979 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2980 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2982 3.38 2983 Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference / Section 9.1.1 2985 3.38.191 Ineligible degree of preference 2987 Functionality/Description: The route MAY NOT serve as an input 2988 to the next phase of route selection 2990 RFC2119: MAY NOT 2992 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2993 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2994 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2995 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 2997 3.38.192 Eligible degree of preference 2999 Functionality/Description: Used as the LOCAL_PREF value in any 3000 IBGP readvertisement 3002 RFC2119: MUST 3004 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3005 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3006 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3007 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3009 3.39 3010 Phase 2: Route Selection / Section 9.1.2 3012 3.39.193 Unresolvable NEXT_HOP 3014 Functionality/Description: If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP 3015 route depicts an address that is not resolvable, or it would 3016 become unresolvable if the route was installed in the routing 3017 table the BGP route MUST be excluded 3019 RFC2119: MUST 3021 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3022 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3023 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3024 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3026 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3028 3.39.194 Routes installed in LOC-RIB 3030 Functionality/Description: The route in the Adj-RIBs-In 3031 identified as the best (see section 9.1.2) is installed in the 3032 Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is 3033 currently being held in the Loc-RIB 3035 RFC2119: SHALL 3037 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3038 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3039 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3040 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3042 3.39.195 Immediate next-hop address 3044 Functionality/Description: MUST be determined from the NEXT_HOP 3045 attribute of the selected route (see Section 5.1.3) 3047 RFC2119: MUST 3049 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3050 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3051 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3052 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3054 3.39.196 Phase 2: Route Selection 3056 Functionality/Description: Performed again if either the 3057 immediate next hop or the IGP cost to the NEXT_HOP changes 3059 RFC2119: MUST 3061 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3062 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3063 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3064 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3066 3.39.197 Immediate next-hop address 3068 Functionality/Description: Used for packet forwarding 3070 RFC2119: MUST 3072 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3074 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3076 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3077 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3078 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3080 3.39.198 Unresolvable routes 3082 Functionality/Description: Removed from the Loc-RIB and the 3083 routing table 3085 RFC2119: SHALL 3087 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3088 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3089 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3090 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3092 3.39.199 Unresolvable routes 3094 Functionality/Description: Kept in the corresponding Adj-RIBs-In 3096 RFC2119: SHOULD 3098 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3099 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3100 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3101 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3103 3.40 3104 Route Resolvability Condition / Section 9.1.2.1 3106 3.40.200 Unresolvable routes 3108 Functionality/Description: Excluded from the Phase 2 decision 3110 RFC2119: SHOULD 3112 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3113 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3114 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3115 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3117 3.40.201 Multiple Matching Routes 3119 Functionality/Description: Only the longest matching route 3120 SHOULD be considered 3122 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3124 RFC2119: SHOULD 3126 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3127 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3128 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3129 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3131 3.40.202 Mutual Recursion 3133 Functionality/Description: If a route fails the resolvability 3134 check because of mutual recursion, an error message SHOULD be 3135 logged 3137 RFC2119: SHOULD 3139 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3140 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We have checks that disallow mutual 3141 recursion, so this won't happen. 3142 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3143 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3145 3.41 3146 Breaking Ties (Phase 2) / Section 9.1.2.2 3148 3.41.203 Tie-breaking criteria 3150 Functionality/Description: Applied in the order specified 3152 RFC2119: MUST 3154 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3155 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3156 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3157 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3159 3.41.204 Algorithm used 3161 Functionality/Description: BGP implementations MAY use any 3162 algorithm which produces the same results asthose described here 3164 RFC2119: MAY 3166 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3167 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3168 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3169 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3171 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3173 3.41.205 MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal 3175 Functionality/Description: If done before re-advertising a route 3176 into IBGP, then comparison based on the received EBGP 3177 MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY still be performed 3179 RFC2119: MAY 3181 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3182 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3183 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3184 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3186 3.41.206 MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal 3188 Functionality/Description: The optional comparison on 3189 MULTI_EXIT_DISC if performed at all MUST be performed only among 3190 EBGP learned routes 3192 RFC2119: MUST 3194 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3195 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3196 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3197 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3199 3.41.207 MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparison 3201 Functionality/Description: Performed for IBGP learned routes 3203 RFC2119: MUST 3205 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3206 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3207 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3208 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3210 3.42 3211 Phase 3: Route Dissemination / Section 9.1.3 3213 3.42.208 Policy for processing routes from the Loc-RIB into Adj-RIBs- 3214 Out 3216 Functionality/Description: Exclude a route in the Loc-RIB from 3217 being installed in a particular Adj-RIB-Out 3219 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3221 RFC2119: MAY 3223 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3224 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3225 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3226 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3228 3.42.209 Adj-Rib-Out Route Installation 3230 Functionality/Description: Not unless the destination and 3231 NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded appropriately 3232 by the Routing Table 3234 RFC2119: SHALL NOT 3236 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3237 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3238 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3239 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3241 3.42.210 Withdraw routes 3243 Functionality/Description: If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded 3244 from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in 3245 that Adj-RIB-Out MUST be withdrawn from service by means of an 3246 UPDATE message (see 9.2) 3248 RFC2119: MUST 3250 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3251 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3252 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3253 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3255 3.43 3256 Overlapping Routes / Section 9.1.4 3258 3.43.211 Overlapping Routes 3260 Functionality/Description: Consider both routes based on the 3261 configured acceptance policy 3263 RFC2119: MUST 3265 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3266 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3267 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3269 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3271 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3273 3.43.212 Accepted Overlapping Routes 3275 Functionality/Description: The Decision Process MUST either 3276 install both routes or... 3278 RFC2119: MUST 3280 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3281 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3282 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3283 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3285 3.43.213 Accepted Overlapping Routes 3287 Functionality/Description: Aggregate the two routes and install 3288 the aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same 3289 value of the NEXT_HOP attribute 3291 RFC2119: MUST 3293 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3294 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We install both in Local RIB. 3295 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N no automatic aggregation 3296 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N no automatic aggregation 3298 3.43.214 Aggregation 3300 Functionality/Description: Either include all ASs used to form 3301 the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 3302 attribute to the route 3304 RFC2119: SHOULD 3306 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3307 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3308 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3309 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3311 3.43.215 De-aggregation 3313 Functionality/Description: Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated 3315 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 3317 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3319 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3320 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3321 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3322 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3324 3.43.216 Route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute 3326 Functionality/Description: Not de-aggregated 3328 RFC2119: MUST NOT 3330 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3331 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3332 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3333 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3335 3.44 3336 Update-Send Process / Section 9.2 3338 3.44.217 UPDATE message received from an internal peer 3340 Functionality/Description: Not re-distribute the routing 3341 information to other internal peers, unless the speaker acts as 3342 a BGP Route Reflector [RFC2796] 3344 RFC2119: SHALL NOT 3346 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3347 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3348 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3349 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3351 3.44.218 No replacement route 3353 Functionality/Description: All newly installed routes and all 3354 newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route 3355 SHALL be advertised to its peers by means of an UPDATE message 3357 RFC2119: SHALL 3359 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3360 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3361 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3362 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3364 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3366 3.44.219 Previously Advertised Routes 3368 Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker SHOULD NOT advertise a 3369 given feasible BGP route if it would produce an UPDATE message 3370 containing the same BGP route as was previously advertised 3372 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 3374 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3375 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3376 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3377 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3379 3.44.220 Unfeasible routes 3381 Functionality/Description: Removed from the Loc-RIB 3383 RFC2119: SHALL 3385 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3386 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3387 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3388 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3390 3.44.221 Changes to reachable destinations 3392 Functionality/Description: Changes to the reachable destinations 3393 within its own autonomous system SHALL also be advertised in an 3394 UPDATE message 3396 RFC2119: SHALL 3398 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3399 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3400 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3401 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3403 3.44.222 A single route doesn't fit into the UPDATE message 3405 Functionality/Description: Don't advertise 3407 RFC2119: MUST 3409 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3410 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3411 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3413 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3415 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3417 3.44.223 A single route doesn't fit into the UPDATE message 3419 Functionality/Description: Log an error local 3421 RFC2119: MAY 3423 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3424 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3425 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3426 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3428 3.45 3429 Frequency of Route Advertisement / Section 9.2.1.1 3431 3.45.224 MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer 3433 Functionality/Description: Minimum separation between two UPDATE 3434 messages sent by a BGP speaker to a peer that advertise feasible 3435 routes and/or withdrawal of unfeasible routes to some common set 3436 of destinations 3438 RFC2119: MUST 3440 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3441 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3442 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3443 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3445 3.45.225 Fast Convergence 3447 Functionality/Description: MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer 3448 used for internal peers SHOULD be shorter than the 3449 MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for external peers, or 3451 RFC2119: SHOULD 3453 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Configurable on per peer basis. 3454 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3455 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N they are same for ebgp and ibgp 3456 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Configuration option allows to set 3457 the time per peer. 3459 3.45.226 Fast Convergence 3461 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3463 Functionality/Description: The procedure describes in this 3464 section SHOULD NOT apply for routes sent to internal peers 3466 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 3468 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Operator has to ensure that through 3469 configuration. 3470 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3471 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3472 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default setting is off for BGP 3473 peers. 3475 3.45.227 MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer 3477 Functionality/Description: The last route selected SHALL be 3478 advertised at the end of MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer 3480 RFC2119: SHALL 3482 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3483 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3484 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3485 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3487 3.46 3488 Aggregating Routing Information / Section 9.2.2.2 3490 3.46.228 MULTI_EXIT_DISC 3492 Functionality/Description: Routes that have different 3493 MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated 3495 RFC2119: SHALL NOT 3497 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3498 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3499 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3500 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3502 3.46.229 AS_SET as the First Element 3504 Functionality/Description: If the aggregated route has an AS_SET 3505 as the first element in its AS_PATH attribute, then the router 3506 that originates the route SHOULD NOT advertise the 3507 MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute with this route 3509 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3511 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 3513 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3514 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3515 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3516 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3518 3.46.230 NEXT_HOP 3520 Functionality/Description: When aggregating routes that have 3521 different NEXT_HOP attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the 3522 aggregated route SHALL identify an interface on the BGP speaker 3523 that performs the aggregation 3525 RFC2119: SHALL 3527 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3528 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3529 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3530 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3532 3.46.231 ORIGIN INCOMPLETE 3534 Functionality/Description: Used if at least one route among 3535 routes that are aggregated has ORIGIN with the value INCOMPLETE 3537 RFC2119: MUST 3539 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3540 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3541 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3542 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3544 3.46.232 ORIGIN EGP 3546 Functionality/Description: Used if at least one route among 3547 routes that are aggregated has ORIGIN with the value EGP 3549 RFC2119: MUST 3551 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3552 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3553 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3554 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3556 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3558 3.46.233 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes 3560 Functionality/Description: The aggregated AS_PATH attribu 3561 te 3562 SHALL satisfy all of the following conditions: ... 3564 RFC2119: SHALL 3566 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3567 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3568 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3569 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3571 3.46.234 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes 3573 Functionality/Description: All tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE in the 3574 aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in all of the AS_PATH in the 3575 initial set of routes to be aggregated 3577 RFC2119: SHALL 3579 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3580 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3581 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3582 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3584 3.46.235 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes 3586 Functionality/Description: All tuples of type AS_SET in the 3587 aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in at least one of the AS_PATH 3588 in the initial set 3590 RFC2119: SHALL 3592 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3593 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3594 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3595 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3597 3.46.236 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes 3599 Functionality/Description: For any tuple X of type AS_SEQUENCE 3600 in the aggregated AS_PATH which precedes tuple Y in the 3601 aggregated AS_PATH, X precedes Y in each AS_PATH in the initial 3602 set which contains Y, regardless of the type of Y 3604 RFC2119: N/A 3606 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3608 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3609 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3610 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3611 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3613 3.46.237 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes 3615 Functionality/Description: No tuple of type AS_SET with the same 3616 value SHALL appear more than once in the aggregated AS_PATH 3618 RFC2119: SHALL 3620 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3621 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3622 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3623 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3625 3.46.238 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes 3627 Functionality/Description: Multiple tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE 3628 with the same value may appear in the aggregated AS_PATH only 3629 when adjacent to another tuple of the same type and value 3631 RFC2119: N/A 3633 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3634 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3635 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3636 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3638 3.46.239 AS_PATH Aggregation Algorithm 3640 Functionality/Description: Able to perform the (minimum) 3641 algorithm described in 9.2.2.2. 3643 RFC2119: SHALL 3645 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3646 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We don't do merging. 3647 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3648 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3650 3.46.240 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 3652 Functionality/Description: The aggregated route SHALL have this 3654 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3656 attribute if at least one of the routes to be aggregated has it 3658 RFC2119: SHALL 3660 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3661 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3662 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3663 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3665 3.46.241 AGGREGATOR 3667 Functionality/Description: Attribute from routes to be 3668 aggregated MUST NOT be included in aggregated route 3670 RFC2119: MUST NOT 3672 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3673 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3674 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3675 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3677 3.46.242 AGGREGATOR 3679 Functionality/Description: Attach a new one when aggregating 3680 (see Section 5.1.7) 3682 RFC2119: MAY 3684 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3685 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3686 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3687 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3689 3.47 3690 Route Selection Criteria / Section 9.3 3692 3.47.243 Unstable routes 3694 Functionality/Description: Avoid using them 3696 RFC2119: SHOULD 3698 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3699 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3700 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3701 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3703 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3705 3.47.244 Route changes 3707 Functionality/Description: SHOULD NOT make rapid spontaneous 3708 changes to the choice of route 3710 RFC2119: SHOULD NOT 3712 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3713 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3714 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3715 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3717 3.48 3718 Originating BGP routes / Section 9.4 3720 3.48.245 Non-BGP acquired routes 3722 Functionality/Description: Distributed to other BGP speakers 3723 within the local AS as part of the update process 3724 (see Section 9.2) 3726 RFC2119: MAY 3728 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3729 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3730 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3731 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3733 3.48.246 Non-BGP acquired routes 3735 Functionality/Description: Distribution controlled via 3736 configuration 3738 RFC2119: SHOULD 3740 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3741 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3742 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3743 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3745 3.49 3746 BGP Timers / Section 10 3748 3.49.247 Optional Timers 3750 Functionality/Description: Two optional timers MAY be supported: 3751 DelayOpenTimer, IdleHoldTimer by BGP 3753 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3755 RFC2119: MAY 3757 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3758 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We support DelayOpenTimer but not 3759 IdleHoldTimer 3760 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y support IdleHoldTimer but not the 3761 DelayOpenTimer 3762 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3764 3.49.248 Hold Time 3766 Functionality/Description: Configurable on a per peer basis 3768 RFC2119: MUST 3770 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3771 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3772 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3773 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3775 3.49.249 Timers 3777 Functionality/Description: Allow the other timers to be 3778 configurable 3780 RFC2119: MAY 3782 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3783 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3784 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3785 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3787 3.49.250 Jitter 3789 Functionality/Description: Applied to the timers associated with 3790 MinASOriginationInterval, KeepAlive, 3791 MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry 3793 RFC2119: SHOULD 3795 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3796 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We only apply to ConnectRetry. 3797 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3798 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3800 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3802 3.49.251 Jitter 3804 Functionality/Description: Apply the same jitter to each of 3805 these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the 3806 updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured 3807 on a "per peer" basis 3809 RFC2119: MAY 3811 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3812 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y We app 3813 ly same only for connectretry. 3814 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3815 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3817 3.49.252 Default amount of jitter 3819 Functionality/Description: Determined by multiplying the base 3820 value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is 3821 uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0 3823 RFC2119: SHALL 3825 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Range is 0.9 to 1.1 3826 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3827 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3828 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3830 3.49.253 Default amount of jitter 3832 Functionality/Description: New random value picked each time the 3833 timer is set 3835 RFC2119: SHOULD 3837 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3838 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3839 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3840 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3842 3.49.254 Jitter Random Value Range 3844 Functionality/Description: Configurable 3846 RFC2119: MAY 3848 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3849 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3850 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3852 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3854 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N 3856 3.50 3857 TCP options that may be used with BGP / Appendix E 3859 3.50.255 TCP PUSH function supported 3861 Functionality/Description: Each BGP message SHOULD be 3862 transmitted with PUSH flag set 3864 RFC2119: SHOULD 3866 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3867 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3868 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3869 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O Depends on the TCP stack support. 3870 GateD 10, NGC can run over 3871 multiple stacks. 3873 3.50.256 DSCP Field Support 3875 Functionality/Description: TCP connections opened with bits 0-2 3876 of the DSCP field set to 110 (binary) 3878 RFC2119: SHOULD 3880 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3881 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3882 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3883 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O Depends on the TCP stack support. 3884 GateD 10, NGC can run over 3885 multiple stacks. 3887 3.51 3888 Reducing route flapping / Appendix F.2 3890 3.51.257 Avoid excessive route flapping 3892 Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker which needs to withdraw 3893 a destination and send an update about a more specific or less 3894 specific route SHOULD combine them into the same UPDATE message 3896 RFC2119: SHOULD 3898 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3899 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3900 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3901 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N 3903 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3905 3.52 3906 Complex AS_PATH aggregation / Appendix F.6 3908 3.52.258 Multiple instances in AS_PATH 3910 Functionality/Description: The last instance (rightmost 3911 occurrence) of that AS number is kept 3913 RFC2119: SHOULD 3915 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N We use algorithm in 9.2.2.2 3916 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N 3917 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N 3918 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N 3920 3.53 3921 Security Considerations 3923 3.53.259 Authentication Mechanism 3925 Functionality/Description: RFC2385 3927 RFC2119: MUST 3929 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3930 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3931 Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3932 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y 3934 4. 3935 Additional BGP implementations Information 3937 Three implementations responded to a call (5/20/04-6/2/04) for 3938 information on those implementations that had a BGP implementation, 3939 but did not complete the full survey. The responses for the call for 3940 additional information are below. 3942 4.1 3943 Avici 3945 If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an 3946 implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send 3947 me the answer the following questions: 3949 1) BGP product 3950 Contributor (your name):Curtis Villamizar [curtis@fictitious.org] 3951 Company: Avici 3952 name of product: IPriori (TM) 3953 minor version: No interoperability problems with any version. 3955 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 3957 Current deployed versions are 5.x and 6.0.x. 3958 Version 6.1 and beyond are tested against the 3959 latest BGP draft soon to replace rfc1771. 3961 2) What other implementations you interoperate with. 3963 Cisco: IOS 12.0(22) 3964 Juniper: JUNOS (version not given) 3966 3) Do you inter-operate with: 3968 1) Alcatel BGP (release) - not tested 3969 2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s - not tested 3970 tested with IOS 12.0(22); BGP is the same 3972 3) laurel BGP (specify release) - not tested 3973 4) NextHop GateD- not tested 3975 4) Did the length of the survey for BGP cause you to not 3976 submit the BGP implementation report? 3978 yes 3980 4.2 3981 Data Connection Ltd. 3983 If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an 3984 implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send 3985 me the answer the following questions: 3987 1) BGP product 3988 Contributor (your name): Mike Dell 3989 Company: Data Connection Ltd. 3990 name of product: DC-BGP 3991 version and minor of software: v1.1 3992 release date: April 2003 3994 2) What other implementations you interoperate with. 3996 Cisco (12.0(26)S) 3997 Alcatal (7770 0BX) 3998 Agilent (Router Tester) 3999 Ixia (1600T) 4000 Netplane (Powercode) 4001 Nortel (Shasta 5000 BSN) 4002 Redback (SmartEdge 800) 4003 Riverstone (RS8000) 4004 Spirent (AX4000) 4006 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 4008 IP Infusion (ZebOs) 4009 Nokia (IP400) 4010 Juniper (M5) 4012 3) Do you inter-operate with 4014 1) Alcatel BGP (release) YES 4015 2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s 4016 Unknown, but we do inter-operate with v12.0(26)s 4017 3) laurel BGP (specify release) Unknown 4018 4) NextHop GateD YES 4020 4) Did the length of the survey for BGP 4021 cause you to not submit the BGP 4022 implementation report? 4024 YES 4026 4.3 4027 Nokia 4029 If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an 4030 implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send 4031 me the answer the following questions: 4033 1) BGP product 4035 Contributor (your name):Rahul Bahadur 4036 (rahul.bahadur@nokia.com) 4037 Company: Nokia 4038 Name of product: IP Security Platforms 4039 Version and minor of software IPSO 3.8 Build031 4040 Release date May 24, 2004 4042 2) What other implementations you interoperate with. 4044 Cisco: IOS 12.3(1) 4045 Extreme: Extremeware Version 6.1.7 (Build 9) 4046 Foundry: SW Version 07.5.05iT53 4047 Juniper: JUNOS 5.3R1.2 4048 Nortel: BayRS 15.4.0.1 4049 GNU Zebra: zebra-0.92a 4051 3) Do you inter-operate with 4053 1) Alcatel BGP (release) - not tested 4054 2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s - yes 4055 3) laurel BGP (specify release) - not tested 4056 4) NextHop GateD- not tested 4058 Hares & 4060 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 4062 4) Did the length of the survey for BGP 4063 cause you to not submit the BGP implementation report? 4065 Yes - lack of resources to help with task. 4067 Security Considerations 4069 This document does not address any security issues. 4071 Normative References 4073 [BGP4] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 4074 (BGP-4)", draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt, June 2004 4076 [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 4077 (BGP-4)", RFC1771, March 1995 4079 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 4080 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, March 1997 4082 [RFC2385] A. Heffernan, "Protection of BGP Session via a TCP MD5 4083 Signature", RFC2385, August 1998 4085 [RFC2796] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Chen, E., "BGP Route Reflection - 4086 an Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000 4088 [RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC2918, 4089 September 2000 4091 [RFC3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., Scudder, J., "Autonomous 4092 Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001 4094 [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, 4095 February 2004 4097 [RFC3668] Bradner, S. "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 4098 Technology", BCP 79, February 2004 4100 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 4102 Acknowledgments 4104 Alcatel Responses provided by: 4105 Contact Name: Devendra Raut 4106 Contact Email: Devendra.raut@Alcatel.com 4108 Cisco Systems Responses provided by: 4109 Contact Name: Himanshu Shah, Ruchi Kapoor 4110 Contact e-mail Address: hhshah@cisco.com, ruchi@cisco.com 4112 Laurel Responses provided by: 4113 Contact Name: Manish Vora 4114 Contact e-mail Address: vora@laurelnetworks.com 4116 NextHop Responses provided by: 4117 Contact Name: Susan Hares 4118 Contact e-mail Address: skh@nexthop.com 4119 Additional Help: Matt Richardson, Shane Wright. 4121 Authors' Addresses 4123 Susan Hares 4124 NextHop Technologies 4125 825 Victors Way, Suite 100 4126 Phone: 734.222.1610 4127 Email: skh@nexthop.com 4129 Alvaro Retana 4130 Cisco Systems, Inc. 4131 7025 Kit Creek Rd. 4132 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 4133 Phone: 919 392 2061 4134 e-mail: aretana@cisco.com 4136 Intellectual Property Statement 4138 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 4139 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed 4140 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 4141 described in this document or the extent to which any license 4142 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 4143 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 4144 such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights 4145 in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 4147 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004 4149 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 4150 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 4151 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 4152 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 4153 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository 4154 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 4156 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention 4157 any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other 4158 proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required 4159 to implement this standard. Please address the information to the 4160 IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 4162 Disclaimer of Validity 4164 This document and the information contained herein are provided on 4165 an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 4166 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE 4167 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR 4168 IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 4169 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 4170 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 4172 Copyright Statement 4174 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 4175 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 4176 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.