idnits 2.17.1 draft-mcpherson-idr-rfc3065bis-impl-00.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 3978, Section 5.1 on line 13. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 252. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 229. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 236. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 242. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 258), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 32. ** 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. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard 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 too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (November 2005) is 6731 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) == Missing Reference: 'RFC3065bis' is mentioned on line 177, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 3065 (Obsoleted by RFC 5065) == Unused Reference: 'BGP-4' is defined on line 193, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 1965' is defined on line 196, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 3065' is defined on line 199, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 1771' is defined on line 204, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 1863' is defined on line 207, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 2119' is defined on line 210, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BGP-4' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1965 (Obsoleted by RFC 3065) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3065 (Obsoleted by RFC 5065) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1771 (Obsoleted by RFC 4271) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1863 (Obsoleted by RFC 4223) Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT Danny McPherson 2 Arbor Networks, Inc. 3 Expires: May 2006 November 2005 5 RFC3065bis Implementation Report 6 8 Status of this Memo 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 11 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have 12 been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware 13 will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 17 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 20 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 21 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 Copyright Notice 32 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. 34 Abstract 36 This document provides an implementation report for Autonomous System 37 Confederations for BGP as defined in draft-ietf-idr- 38 rfc3065bis-05.txt. 40 The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by 41 respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts 42 with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are 43 considered authoritative for the implementations for which their 44 responses represent. 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 49 2. Implementation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 2.1. Operations Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 51 2.2. AS_CONFED Segement Types and AS_PATH Handling . . . . . . . 5 52 2.3. AS_PATH Modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 53 2.4. Error Handling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 54 2.5. Path Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 55 2.6. Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 56 3. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 4. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 5.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 5.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 6. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 1. Introduction 65 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP describes an extension to 66 BGP which may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems 67 that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers 68 external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" 69 requirement inherent to BGP. The intention of this extension is to 70 aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of 71 maintaining a large autonomous system. 73 This document provides an implementation report for Autonomous System 74 Confederations for BGP as defined in draft-ietf-idr- 75 rfc3065bis-05.txt. 77 The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by 78 respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts 79 with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are 80 considered authoritative for the implementations for which their 81 responses represent. 83 2. Implementation Forms 85 Contact and implementation information for person filling out this 86 form: 88 Name: Arijit "Ory" Sarcar 89 Email: Arijit.Sarcar@alcatel.com 90 Vendor: ALCATEL 91 Release: TiMOS 3.0 or greater 93 Name: Robert Raszuk 94 Email: raszuk@cisco.com 95 Vendor: Cisco Systems Inc 96 Release: IOS and IOS-XR 98 Name: Manish Vora 99 Email: Manish.Vora@ecitele.com 100 Vendor: ECI Telecom (formerly Laurel Networks) 101 Release: Shadetree 3.2 103 2.1. Operations Compliance 105 Does your implementation follow the procedures outlined in the 106 Operation Section of [RFC3065bis]? 108 ALCATEL: YES 109 Cisco: YES 110 ECI: YES 112 2.2. AS_CONFED Segement Types and AS_PATH Handling 114 Does your implementation recognize the two AS_CONFED Segment Types 115 (AS_CONFED_SET and AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE) defined in [RFC3065bis]? 117 ALCATEL: YES 118 Cisco: YES 119 ECI: YES 121 Does your implementation use it's Member-AS number in all 122 transactions with peers that are members of the same BGP 123 confederation as the local speaker? 125 ALCATEL: YES 126 Cisco: YES 127 ECI: YES 129 Does your implementation treat receipt of an AS_PATH attribute 130 containing an autonomous system matching its own AS Confederation 131 Identifier in the same fashion as if it had received a path 132 containing its own AS number? 134 ALCATEL: YES 135 Cisco: YES 136 ECI: YES 138 Does your implementation treat receipt of an AS_PATH attribute 139 containing an AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET which contains its 140 own Member-AS Number in the same fashion as if it had received a path 141 containing its own AS number? 143 ALCATEL: YES 144 Cisco: YES 145 ECI: YES 147 2.3. AS_PATH Modification 149 Does your implementation follow the AS_PATH Modification Rules 150 outlined in [RFC3065bis]? 152 ALCATEL: YES 153 Cisco: YES 154 ECI: YES 156 2.4. Error Handling 158 Does your implementation follow the Error Handling procedures 159 outlined in [RFC3065bis]? 161 ALCATEL: YES 162 Cisco: YES 163 ECI: YES 165 2.5. Path Selection 167 Does your implementation follow the Path Selection guidelines 168 outlined in [RFC3065bis]? 170 ALCATEL: YES 171 Cisco: YES 172 ECI: YES 174 2.6. Interoperable Implementations 176 List other implementations that you have tested for Autonomous System 177 Confederatins for BGP [RFC3065bis]: 179 ALCATEL: IOS, JUNOS 180 Cisco: JUNOS, IOS, IOS-XR, Redback, GateD 181 ECI: IOS, JUNOS, Redback 183 3. Security Considerations 185 4. Acknowledgments 187 To Be Supplied... 189 5. References 191 5.1. Normative References 193 [BGP-4] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and Hares, S., "A Border Gateway 194 Protocol 4", Internet-Draft, "Work in Progress". 196 [RFC 1965] Traina, P. "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", 197 RFC 1965, June 1996. 199 [RFC 3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D. and Scudder, J., "Autonomous 200 System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001. 202 5.2. Informative References 204 [RFC 1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 205 (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995. 207 [RFC 1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a 208 full mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995. 210 [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 211 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 213 6. Author's Address 215 Danny McPherson 216 Arbor Networks, Inc. 217 Phone: +1 303.470.9257 218 EMail: danny@arbor.net 220 Intellectual Property Statement 222 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 223 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 224 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 225 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 226 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 227 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 228 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 229 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 231 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 232 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 233 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 234 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 235 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 236 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 238 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 239 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 240 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 241 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 242 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 244 Disclaimer of Validity 246 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 247 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 248 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 249 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 250 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 251 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 252 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 254 Copyright Statement 256 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 257 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 258 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 260 Acknowledgment 262 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 263 Internet Society.