idnits 2.17.1 draft-thomas-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.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 3667, Section 5.1 on line 19. ** The document claims conformance with section 10 of RFC 2026, but uses some RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate. As RFC 3978/3979 replaces section 10 of RFC 2026, you should not claim conformance with it if you have changed to using RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate. ** 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? ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 (updated by RFC 4748) Copyright Line. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Reference to BCP 78. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.5 (updated by RFC 4748) Disclaimer -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 2 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 3 IPR Disclosure Invitation. ** 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == 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 a Security Considerations section. ** 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.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 134 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 9 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3036], [RFC3031]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == There are 33 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (March 2005) is 6983 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '10' on line 358 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '11' on line 364 == Unused Reference: 'RFC3037' is defined on line 313, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3036 (Obsoleted by RFC 5036) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3037 Summary: 17 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Bob Thomas 3 Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Expiration Date: September 2005 5 Loa Andersson 6 Acreo AB 8 March 2005 10 LDP Implementation Survey Results 12 draft-thomas-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 By submitting this Internet-Draft, we certify that any applicable 17 patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been disclosed, 18 or will be disclosed, and any of which we become aware will be 19 disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 21 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 22 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 26 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 27 Drafts. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 37 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 38 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 40 Abstract 42 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a method for forwarding 43 packets that uses short, fixed-length values carried by packets, 44 called labels, to determine packet nexthops [RFC3031]). A 45 fundamental concept in MPLS is that two Label Switching Routers 46 (LSRs) must agree on the meaning of the labels used to forward 47 traffic between and through them. This common understanding is 48 achieved by using a set of procedures, called a label distribution 49 protocol, by which one LSR informs another of label bindings it has 50 made. One such protocol called LDP [RFC3036] is used by LSRs to 51 distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding along normally routed 52 paths. This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations 53 conducted in August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from 54 proposed to draft standard. 56 Table of Contents 58 1 Introduction ....................................... 3 59 1.1 The LDP Survey Form ................................ 3 60 1.2 LDP Survey Highlights .............................. 4 61 2 Survey Results for LDP Features .................... 5 62 3 References ......................................... 8 63 4 Author Information ................................. 8 64 Appendix.A Full LDP Survey Results ............................ 9 65 Appendix.C Old form of Appendix A. ............................ 22 67 1. Introduction 69 This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations conducted in 70 August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from proposed to 71 draft standard. 73 This section highlights some of the survey results. Section 2 74 presents the survey results for LDP features, and Appendix A presents 75 the survey results in full. Appendix B contains a copy of the survey 76 form. 78 1.1. The LDP Survey Form 80 The LDP implementtaion survey requested the following information 81 about LDP implementation: 83 - Responding organization. Provisions were made to accommondate 84 organizations that wished to respond anonymously. 86 - The status, availability and origin of the LDP implementation. 88 - The LDP features implemented and for each whether it was tested 89 against an independent implementation. The survey form listed each 90 LDP feature defined by RFC3036 and requested one of the following 91 as the status of the feature: 93 t: Tested against another independent implementation; 94 y: Implemented but not tested against independent 95 implementation; 96 n: Not implemented; 97 x: Not applicable to this type of implementation; 99 In addition for the 'n' status the responder could optionally 100 provide the following additional information: 102 s: RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing; 103 u: Utility of feature unclear; 104 r: Feature not required for feature set implemented; 106 This document uses the following conventions for reporting survey 107 results for a feature: 109 At By Cn indicates: 111 - A responders implemented the feature and tested it against 112 another independent implementation (t); 113 - B responders implemented the feature but have not tested it 114 against an independent implmented (y); 115 - C responders did not implement the the feature (n); 117 (Ds Eu Fr) indicates optional responses: 119 - D responders thought the RFC3036 specification of the feature 120 inadequate, unclear, or confusing (s). 121 - E responders thought the utility of the feature unclear (u). 122 - F responders considered the feature not required for the feature 123 set implemented (combines x and r). 125 1.2. LDP Survey Highlights 127 This section presents some highlights from the implementatation 128 survey. 130 - There were 12 responses to the survey, 2 of which were anonymous. 131 At the time of the survey 10 of the implementation were available 132 as products and 2 were in beta test. Eleven of the 133 implementations were available for sale; the remaining 134 implementation had been done by a company no longer in business. 136 - Seven implementations were independently written from the RFC3036 137 specification. Four implementations combined purchased or free 138 code with code written by the responder. 140 One of the implementations was fully purchased code ported to the 141 vendor's responder. 143 - Every LDP feature in the survey questionnaire was implemented by 144 at least 2 respondents. 146 - Each of the 8 LDP Label Distribution Modes implemented and 147 tested; 149 8t 2y 2n DU, Ord Cntl, Lib Reten 150 7t 1y 4n DU, Ind Cntl, Lib Reten 151 7t 1y 4n DoD Ord Cntl, Cons Reten 152 6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind Cntl, Cons Reten 153 6t 1y 5n DU, Ord Cntl, Cons Reten 154 6t 0y 6n DU, Ind Cntl, Cons Reten 155 4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord Cntl, Lib Reten 156 4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind,Cntl, Lib Reten 158 - Platform and Interface Label Spaces were both widely supported. 160 12t 0y 0n Per Platform 161 7t 1y 4n Per Interface 163 - LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported. 165 12t 0y 0n Basic/Directly Connected 166 11t 1y 0n Targeted 168 - The TCP MD5 Option for LDP session TCP connections was not widely 169 implemented. 171 3t 1y 8n 173 2. Survey Results for LDP Features 175 This section presents the survey results for LDP features using the 176 notational convention described in Section 1.2. It omits the 177 optional status responses (s, u, r); complete results may be found in 178 Appendix A. 180 Feature 181 Survey Result 183 Interface types 184 12t 0y 0n Packet 185 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay 186 6t 2y 4n ATM 187 Label Spaces 188 12t 0y 0n Per platform 189 7t 1y 4n Per interface 190 LDP Discovery 191 12t 0y 0n Basic 192 11t 1y 0n Targeted 193 LDP Sessions 194 12t 0y 0n Directly Connected 195 11t 1y 0n Targeted 196 LDP Modes 197 7t 1y 4n DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten 198 8t 2y 2n DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten 199 6t 0y 6n DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten 200 6t 1y 5n DU, Ord cntl Cons reten 201 4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten 202 4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten 203 6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten 204 7t 1y 4n DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten 206 Loop Detection 207 9t 2y 1n 208 TCP MD5 Option 209 3t 1y 8n 210 LDP TLVs 211 7t 4y 0n U-bit 212 7t 4y 0n F-bit 213 12t 0y 0n FEC TLV 214 6t 5y 1n Wildcard 215 12t 0y 0n Prefix 216 10t 0y 2n Host 217 12t 0y 0n Address List TLV 218 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 219 9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV 220 12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV 221 6t 2y 4n ATM Label TLV 222 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay Label TLV 223 12t 0y 0n Status TLV 224 9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV 225 6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV 226 6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV 227 12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV 228 12t 0y 0n T-bit 229 11t 0y 1n R-bit 230 11t 1y 0n Hold Time 231 12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV 232 7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV 233 1t 1y 1n IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 234 12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV 235 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time 236 11t 0y 1n PVLim 237 11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length 238 6t 2y 2n ATM Session Param TLV 239 M values 240 5t 3y 4n 0 No Merge 241 3t 3y 6n 1 VP Merge 242 5t 3y 4n 2 VC Merge 243 3t 3y 6n 3 VP & VC Merge 244 6t 2y 4n D-bit 245 6t 2y 4n ATM Label Range Component 246 2t 3y 7n FR Session Param TLV 247 M values 248 2t 3y 7n 0 No Merge 249 2t 3y 7n 1 Merge 250 2t 3y 7n D-bit 251 2t 3y 7n FR Label Range Component 252 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV 253 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private TLV 254 1t 5y 6n Experimental TLV 255 LDP Messages 256 12t 0y 0n Notification Msg 257 12t 0y 0n Hello Msg 258 12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg 259 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg 260 12t 0y 0n Address Msg 261 12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg 262 12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg 263 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg Id TLV 264 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 265 10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV 266 9t 0y 3n Label Request Msg 267 9t 0y 3n Hop Count TLV 268 9t 0y 3n Path Vect TLV 269 12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg 270 12t 0y 0n Label TLV 271 11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg 272 10t 1y 1n Label TLV 273 9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg 274 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private Msg 275 1t 5y 6n Experimental Msg 276 LDP Status Codes 277 9t 3y 0n Success 278 8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id 279 7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version 280 7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length 281 7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type 282 7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length 283 7t 4y 0n Unknown TLV 284 7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length 285 7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value 286 11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired 287 11t 1y 0n Shutdown 288 10t 1y 1n Loop Detected 289 7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC 290 11t 1y 0n No Route 291 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 292 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable 293 Session Rejected 294 7t 5y 0n No Hello 295 9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode 296 9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len 297 8t 3y 1n Param Label Range 298 7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time 299 11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired 300 9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted 301 6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params 302 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 303 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 305 3. References 307 [RFC3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label 308 Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001. 310 [RFC3036] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, B. 311 Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC3036, January 2001. 313 [RFC3037] B. Thomas, E. Gray, "LDP Applicability", RFC3037, January 314 2001. 316 4. Author Information 318 Bob Thomas 319 Cisco Systems, Inc. 320 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 321 Boxborough MA 01719 323 Loa Andersson 324 Acreo AB 325 Isafjordsgatan 22 326 Kista, Sweden 328 Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results 330 LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0] 332 ======================================================================= 333 A. General information. 335 Responders: 337 Anonymous: 2 338 Public: 10 340 Agilent Technologies 341 Celox Networks, Inc. 342 Cisco Systems, Inc. 343 Data Connection Ltd. 344 NetPlane Systems, Inc 345 Trillium, An Intel Company 346 Redback Networks 347 Riverstone Networks 348 Vivace Networks, Inc. 349 Wipro Technologies 351 ======================================================================= 352 B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin 354 Status: 355 [ ] Development 356 [ ] Alpha 357 [ 2] Beta 358 [10] Product 359 [ ] Other (describe): 361 Availability 362 [ ] Public and free 363 [ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free 364 [11] On sale. 365 [ ] For internal company use only 366 [ 1] Other: 367 Implementation based on: (check all that apply) 368 [ 1] Purchased code 369 (please list source if possible) 370 [ ] Free code 371 (please list source if possible) 372 [ 7] Internal implementation 373 (no outside code, just from specs) 374 [ 4] Internal implementation on top of purchased 375 or free code 377 ======================================================================= 378 C. LDP Feature Survey. 380 For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the 381 implementation using one of the following: 383 't' tested against another independent implementation 384 'y' implemented but not tested against independent 385 implementation 386 'n' not implemented 387 'x' not applicable to this type of implementation 389 Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing 390 using one of the following: 392 's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing 393 'u' utility of feature unclear 394 'r' feature not required for feature set implemented 396 Feature RFC3036 Section(s) 397 Survey Result 399 Interface types 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2 400 12t 0y 0n Packet 401 2t 3y 7n(3r 1x) Frame Relay 402 6t 2y 4n(3r) ATM 403 Label Spaces 2.2.1, 2.2.2 404 12t 0y 0n Per platform 405 7t 1y 4n(4r) Per interface 406 LDP Discovery 2.4 407 12t 0y 0n Basic 2.4.1 408 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.4.2 409 LDP Sessions 2.2.3 410 12t 0y 0n Directly Connected -- 411 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.3 412 LDP Modes 2.6 413 7t 1y 4n(2u 1r) DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6 414 8t 2y 2n(1r) DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6 415 6t 0y 6n(2u 2r) DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6 416 6t 1y 5n(1u 2r) DU, Ord cntl Cons reten 2.6 417 4t 2y 6n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6 418 4t 3y 5n(2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6 419 6t 1y 5n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6 420 7t 1y 4n(1u 2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten 2.6 421 Loop Detection 2.8 422 9t 2y 1n 423 TCP MD5 Option 2.9 424 3t 1y 8n(1u 1r 1x) 426 LDP TLVs 3.3, 3.4, throughout 427 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) U-bit 3.3 428 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) F-bit 3.3 429 FEC TLV 1, 2.1, 3.4.1 430 6t 5y 1n(1r) Wildcard 3.4.1 431 12t 0y 0n Prefix 3.4.1 432 10t 0y 2n(s1 1u 1r) Host 2.1, 3.4.1 433 12t 0y 0n Address List TLV 3.4.3 434 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.4.4 435 9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV 3.4.5 436 12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV 3.4.2.1 437 6t 2y 4n(2r) ATM Label TLV 3.4.2.2 438 2t 3y 7n(1u 2r 1x) Frame Relay Label TLV 3.4.2.3 439 12t 0y 0n Status TLV 3.4.6 440 9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV 3.5.1 441 6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV 3.5.1 442 6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV 3.5.1 443 12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV 3.5.2 444 12t 0y 0n T-bit 3.5.2 445 11t 0y 1n R-bit 3.5.2 446 11t 1y 0n Hold Time 3.5.2 447 12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2 448 7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV 3.5.2 449 1t 1y 1n(1u 4r 1x) IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2 450 12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV 3.5.3 451 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time 3.5.3 452 11t 0y 1n PVLim 3.5.3 453 11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length 3.5.3 454 6t 2y 2n(1r 1x) ATM Session Param TLV 3.5.3 455 M values 456 5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3 457 3t 3y 6n(s 1 1r 1x) 1 VP Merge 3.5.3 458 5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 2 VC Merge 3.5.3 459 3t 3y 6n(s1 1r 1x) 3 VP & VC Merge 3.5.3 460 6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) D-bit 3.5.3 461 6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) ATM Label Range 3.5.3 462 Component 463 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Session Param TLV 3.5.3 464 M values 465 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3 466 2t 3y 7n 1 Merge 3.5.3 467 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) D-bit 3.5.3 468 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Label Range 3.5.3 469 Component 470 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV 3.5.7 471 2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private TLV 3.6.1.1 472 1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental TLV 3.6.2 474 LDP Messages 3.5, throughout 475 12t 0y 0n Notification Msg 3.5.1 476 12t 0y 0n Hello Msg 3.5.2 477 12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg 3.5.3 478 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg 3.5.4 479 12t 0y 0n Address Msg 3.5.5 480 12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg 3.5.6 481 12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg 3.5.7 482 10t 0y 2n(1r) Label Request Msg Id TLV 3.5.7 483 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.5.7 484 10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV 3.5.7 485 9t 0y 3n(1x) Label Request Msg 3.5.8 486 9t 0y 3n(1x) Hop Count TLV 3.5.8 487 9t 0y 3n(1x) Path Vect TLV 3.5.8 488 12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg 3.5.10 489 12t 0y 0n Label TLV 3.5.10 490 11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg 3.5.11 491 10t 1y 1n Label TLV 3.5.11 492 9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg 3.5.9 493 2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private Msg 3.6.1.2 494 1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental Msg 3.6.2 495 LDP Status Codes 3.4.6 496 9t 3y 0n Success 3.4.6, 3.9 497 8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id 3.5.1.2.1 498 7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version 3.5.1.2.1 499 7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length 3.5.1.2.1 500 7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type 3.5.1.2.1 501 7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length 3.5.1.2.1 502 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) Unknown TLV 3.5.1.2.2 503 7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length 3.5.1.2.2 504 7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value 3.5.1.2.2 505 11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired 3.5.1.2.3 506 11t 1y 0n Shutdown 3.5.1.2.4 507 10t 1y 1n Loop Detected 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 508 7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC 3.4.1.1 509 11t 1y 0n No Route 3.5.8.1 510 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 3.5.8.1 511 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable 3.5.8.1 512 Session Rejected 2.5.3, 3.5.3 513 7t 5y 0n No Hello 2.5.3, 3.5.3 514 9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode 2.5.3, 3.5.3 515 9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len 2.5.3, 3.5.3 516 8t 3y 1n Param Label Range 2.5.3, 3.5.3 517 7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 518 11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 519 9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted 3.5.9.1 520 6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params 3.5.1.2.1 521 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 522 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 3.5.1.2.7 524 Appendix B. LDP Implementation Survey Form 526 LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0] 528 The purpose of this form is to gather information about 529 implementations of LDP as defined by RFC3036. The information is 530 being requested as part of the process of advancing LDP from Proposed 531 to Draft Standard. 533 The form is patterned after the implementation report form used for 534 HTTP/1.1; see: 536 http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/http1.1-implementations.txt 538 ======================================================================= 539 A. General information. 541 Please provide the following information. 542 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 544 Organization: 546 Organization url(s): 548 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 550 Product title(s): 552 Brief description(s): 554 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 556 Contact for LDP information 557 Name: 558 Title: 559 E-mail: 560 Organization/department: 561 Postal address: 562 Phone: 563 Fax: 565 ======================================================================= 566 B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin 568 Please check [x] the boxes that apply. 569 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 570 Status: 571 [ ] Development 572 [ ] Alpha 573 [ ] Beta 574 [ ] Product 575 [ ] Other (describe): 577 Availability 578 [ ] Public and free 579 [ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free 580 [ ] On sale. 581 [ ] For internal company use only 582 [ ] Other: 584 Implementation based on: (check all that apply) 585 [ ] Purchased code 586 (please list source if possible) 587 [ ] Free code 588 (please list source if possible) 589 [ ] Internal implementation 590 (no outside code, just from specs) 591 [ ] Internal implementation on top of purchased 592 or free code 593 List portions from external source: 594 List portions developed internally: 596 ======================================================================= 597 C. LDP Feature Survey. 599 For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the implementation 600 using one of the following: 602 't' tested against another independent implementation 603 'y' implemented but not tested against independent implementation 604 'n' not implemented 605 '-' not applicable to this type of implementation 607 Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing using 608 one of the following: 610 's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing 611 'u' utility of feature unclear 612 'r' feature not required for feature set implemented 614 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 615 | | Status 616 | | (one of t, y, n, -; if n, 617 Feature | RFC3036 Section(s) | optionally one of s, u, r) 618 ==================+=============================+========================= 619 Interface types | 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2 620 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 621 Packet | | 622 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 623 Frame Relay | | 624 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 625 ATM | | 626 ==================+=============================+========================= 627 Label Spaces | 2.2.1, 2.2.2 628 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 629 Per platform | | 630 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 631 Per interface | | 632 ==================+=============================+========================= 633 LDP Discovery | 2.4 634 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 635 Basic | 2.4.1 | 636 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 637 Targeted | 2.4.2 | 638 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 639 LDP Sessions | 2.2.3 640 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 641 Directly | -- | 642 Connected | | 643 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 644 Targeted | 2.3 | 645 ==================+=============================+========================= 646 LDP Modes | 2.6 647 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 648 DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 649 Lib retention | | 650 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 651 DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 652 Lib retention | | 653 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 654 DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 655 Cons retention | | 656 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 657 DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 658 Cons retention | | 659 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 660 DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 661 Lib retention | | 662 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 663 DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 664 Lib retention | | 665 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 666 DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 667 Cons retention | | 668 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 669 DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 670 Cons retention | | 671 ==================+=============================+========================= 672 Loop Detection | 2.8 | 673 ==================+=============================+========================= 674 TCP MD5 Option | 2.9 | 675 ==================+=============================+========================= 676 LDP TLVs | 3.3, 3.4, throughout 677 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 678 U-bit | 3.3 | 679 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 680 F-bit | 3.3 | 681 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 682 FEC | 1., 2.1, 3.4.1 | 683 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 684 Wildcard | 3.4.1 | 685 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 686 Prefix | 2.1, 3.4.1 | 687 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 688 Host | 2.1, 3.4.1 | 689 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 690 Address List | 3.4.3 | 691 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 692 Hop Count | 3.4.4 | 693 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 694 Path Vector | 3.4.5 | 695 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 696 Generic Label | 3.4.2.1 | 697 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 698 ATM Label | 3.4.2.2 | 699 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 700 Frame Relay | 3.4.2.3 | 701 Label | | 702 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 703 Status | 3.4.6 | 704 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 705 Extended Status | 3.5.1 | 706 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 707 Returned PDU | 3.5.1 | 708 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 709 Returned Message| 3.5.1 | 711 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 712 Common Hello | 3.5.2 | 713 Parameters | | 714 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 715 T-bit | 3.5.2 | 716 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 717 R-bit | 3.5.2 | 718 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 719 Hold Time | 3.5.2 | 720 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 721 IPv4 Transport | 3.5.2 | 722 Address | | 723 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 724 Configuration | 3.5.2 | 725 Sequence Number | | 726 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 727 IPv6 Transport | 3.5.2 | 728 Address | | 729 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 730 Common Session | 3.5.3 | 731 Parameters | | 732 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 733 KeepAlive Time| 3.5.3 | 734 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 735 PVLim | 3.5.3 | 736 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 737 Max PDU Length| 3.5.3 | 738 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 739 ATM Session | 3.5.3 | 740 Parameters | | 741 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 742 M values | | 743 0 No Merge | 3.5.3 | 744 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 745 1 VP Merge | 3.5.3 | 746 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 747 2 VC Merge | 3.5.3 | 748 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 749 3 VP & | 3.5.3 | 750 VC Merge | | 751 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 752 D-bit | 3.5.3 | 753 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 754 ATM Label | 3.5.3 | 755 Range | | 756 Component | | 757 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 758 Frame Relay | 3.5.3 | 759 Session | | 760 Parameters | | 761 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 762 M values | | 763 0 No Merge | 3.5.3 | 764 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 765 1 Merge | 3.5.3 | 766 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 767 D-bit | 3.5.3 | 768 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 769 Frame Relay | 3.5.3 | 770 Label Range | | 771 Component | | 772 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 773 Label Request | 3.5.7 | 774 Message ID | | 775 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 776 Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.1 | 777 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 778 Experimental | 3.6.2 | 779 ==================+=============================+========================= 780 LDP Messages | 3.5, throughout 781 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 782 Notification | 3.5.1 | 783 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 784 Hello | 3.5.2 | 785 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 786 Initialization | 3.5.3 | 787 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 788 KeepAlive | 3.5.4 | 789 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 790 Address | 3.5.5 | 791 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 792 Address Withdraw| 3.5.6 | 793 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 794 Label Mapping | 3.5.7 | 795 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 796 Label Request | 3.5.7 | 797 Message ID TLV| | 798 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 799 Hop Count TLV | 3.5.7 | 800 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 801 Path Vect TLV | 3.5.7 | 802 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 803 Label Request | 3.5.8 | 804 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 805 Hop Count TLV | 3.5.8 | 806 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 807 Path Vect TLV | 3.5.8 | 808 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 809 Label Withdraw | 3.5.10 | 810 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 811 Label TLV | 3.5.10 | 812 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 813 Label Release | 3.5.11 | 814 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 815 Label TLV | 3.5.11 | 816 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 817 Label Abort Req | 3.5.9 | 818 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 819 Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.2 | 820 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 821 Experimental | 3.6.2 | 822 ==================+=============================+========================= 823 LDP Status Codes | 3.4.6 824 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 825 Success | 3.4.6, 3.9 | 826 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 827 Bad LDP Id | 3.5.1.2.1 | 828 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 829 Bad Ptcl Version| 3.5.1.2.1 | 830 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 831 Bad PDU Length | 3.5.1.2.1 | 832 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 833 Unknown Message | 3.5.1.2.1 | 834 Type | | 835 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 836 Bad Message | 3.5.1.2.1 | 837 Length | | 838 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 839 Unknown TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 | 840 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 841 Bad TLV length | 3.5.1.2.2 | 842 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 843 Malformed TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 | 844 Value | | 845 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 846 Hold Timer | 3.5.1.2.3 | 847 Expired | | 848 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 849 Shutdown | 3.5.1.2.4 | 850 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 851 Loop Detected | 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 | 852 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 853 Unknown FEC | 3.4.1.1 | 854 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 855 No Route | 3.5.8.1 | 856 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 857 No Label | 3.5.8.1 | 858 Resources | | 859 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 860 Label Resources | 3.5.8.1 | 861 Available | | 862 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 863 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 864 No Hello | | 865 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 866 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 867 Parameters | | 868 Advert Mode | | 869 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 870 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 871 Parameters | | 872 Max PDU Length | | 873 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 874 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 875 Parameters | | 876 Label Range | | 877 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 878 KeepAlive Timer | 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 | 879 Expired | | 880 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 881 Label Request | 3.5.9.1 | 882 Aborted | | 883 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 884 Missing Message | 3.5.1.2.1 | 885 Parameters | | 886 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 887 Unsupported | 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 | 888 Address Family | | 889 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 890 Session Rejected| 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 | 891 Bad KeepAlive | | 892 Time | | 893 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 894 Internal Error | 3.5.1.2.7 | 895 ==================+=============================+========================= 897 Appendix C. Old form of Appendix A. 899 Feature RFC3036 Section(s) 900 Survey Result 902 Interface types 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2 903 12t 0y 0n Packet 904 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay 905 6t 2y 4n ATM 906 Label Spaces 2.2.1, 2.2.2 907 12t 0y 0n Per platform 908 7t 1y 4n Per interface 909 LDP Discovery 2.4 910 12t 0y 0n Basic 2.4.1 911 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.4.2 912 LDP Sessions 2.2.3 913 12t 0y 0n Directly Connected -- 914 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.3 915 LDP Modes 2.6 916 7t 1y 4n DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6 917 8t 2y 2n DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6 918 6t 0y 6n DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6 919 6t 1y 5n DU, Ord cntl Cons reten 2.6 920 4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6 921 4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6 922 6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6 923 7t 1y 4n DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten 2.6 924 Loop Detection 2.8 925 9t 2y 1n 926 TCP MD5 Option 2.9 927 3t 1y 8n 928 LDP TLVs 3.3, 3.4, throughout 929 7t 4y 0n U-bit 3.3 930 7t 4y 0n F-bit 3.3 931 12t 0y 0n FEC TLV 1, 2.1, 3.4.1 932 6t 5y 1n Wildcard 3.4.1 933 12t 0y 0n Prefix 3.4.1 934 10t 0y 2n Host 2.1, 3.4.1 935 12t 0y 0n Address List TLV 3.4.3 936 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.4.4 937 9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV 3.4.5 938 12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV 3.4.2.1 939 6t 2y 4n ATM Label TLV 3.4.2.2 940 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay Label TLV 3.4.2.3 941 12t 0y 0n Status TLV 3.4.6 942 9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV 3.5.1 943 6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV 3.5.1 944 6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV 3.5.1 945 12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV 3.5.2 946 12t 0y 0n T-bit 3.5.2 947 11t 0y 1n R-bit 3.5.2 948 11t 1y 0n Hold Time 3.5.2 949 12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2 950 7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV 3.5.2 951 1t 1y 1n IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2 952 12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV 3.5.3 953 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time 3.5.3 954 11t 0y 1n PVLim 3.5.3 955 11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length 3.5.3 956 6t 2y 2n ATM Session Param TLV 3.5.3 957 M values 958 5t 3y 4n 0 No Merge 3.5.3 959 3t 3y 6n 1 VP Merge 3.5.3 960 5t 3y 4n 2 VC Merge 3.5.3 961 3t 3y 6n 3 VP & VC Merge 3.5.3 962 6t 2y 4n D-bit 3.5.3 963 6t 2y 4n ATM Label Range Component3.5.3 964 2t 3y 7n FR Session Param TLV 3.5.3 965 M values 966 2t 3y 7n 0 No Merge 3.5.3 967 2t 3y 7n 1 Merge 3.5.3 968 2t 3y 7n D-bit 3.5.3 969 2t 3y 7n FR Label Range Component 3.5.3 970 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV 3.5.7 971 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private TLV 3.6.1.1 972 1t 5y 6n Experimental TLV 3.6.2 973 LDP Messages 3.5, throughout 974 12t 0y 0n Notification Msg 3.5.1 975 12t 0y 0n Hello Msg 3.5.2 976 12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg 3.5.3 977 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg 3.5.4 978 12t 0y 0n Address Msg 3.5.5 979 12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg 3.5.6 980 12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg 3.5.7 981 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg Id TLV 3.5.7 982 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.5.7 983 10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV 3.5.7 984 9t 0y 3n Label Request Msg 3.5.8 985 9t 0y 3n Hop Count TLV 3.5.8 986 9t 0y 3n Path Vect TLV 3.5.8 987 12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg 3.5.10 988 12t 0y 0n Label TLV 3.5.10 989 11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg 3.5.11 990 10t 1y 1n Label TLV 3.5.11 991 9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg 3.5.9 992 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private Msg 3.6.1.2 993 1t 5y 6n Experimental Msg 3.6.2 994 LDP Status Codes 3.4.6 995 9t 3y 0n Success 3.4.6, 3.9 996 8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id 3.5.1.2.1 997 7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version 3.5.1.2.1 998 7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length 3.5.1.2.1 999 7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type 3.5.1.2.1 1000 7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length 3.5.1.2.1 1001 7t 4y 0n Unknown TLV 3.5.1.2.2 1002 7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length 3.5.1.2.2 1003 7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value 3.5.1.2.2 1004 11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired 3.5.1.2.3 1005 11t 1y 0n Shutdown 3.5.1.2.4 1006 10t 1y 1n Loop Detected 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 1007 7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC 3.4.1.1 1008 11t 1y 0n No Route 3.5.8.1 1009 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 3.5.8.1 1010 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable 3.5.8.1 1011 Session Rejected 2.5.3, 3.5.3 1012 7t 5y 0n No Hello 2.5.3, 3.5.3 1013 9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode 2.5.3, 3.5.3 1014 9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len 2.5.3, 3.5.3 1015 8t 3y 1n Param Label Range 2.5.3, 3.5.3 1016 7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 1017 11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 1018 9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted 3.5.9.1 1019 6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params 3.5.1.2.1 1020 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 1021 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 3.5.1.2.7 1023 Full Copyright Statement 1025 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year). This document is subject 1026 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 1027 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 1029 Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents 1030 except in the case where such document is the product of a joint 1031 development effort between the IETF and another standards development 1032 organization or the document is a republication of the work of 1033 another standards organization. Such exceptions must be approved on 1034 an individual basis by the IAB. 1036 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1037 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1038 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 1039 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 1040 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR- 1041 MATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES 1042 OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.