BGP-4 Implementation Report
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4276.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alvaro Retana , Susan Hares | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2004-11-11) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 4276 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Alex D. Zinin | ||
| Send notices to | shares@nexthop.com, yakov@juniper.net |
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02
Interdomain Working Group
Internet Draft S. Hares
Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02.txt NextHop
A. Retana
Cisco
Expires: April 2005 October 2004
BGP 4 Implementation Report
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, we certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been
disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which we become aware
will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt .
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html"
Abstract
This document provides a survey of the BGP-4 implementation draft-
ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt. After a brief summary, each response is
listed. The editors created the draft based on the input given by
those contributors responding to the survey.
The editors did not verify the accuracy of the information submitted
by contributor by an exterior means. The contributors are experts
with the products they reported on.
Conventions used in this document
Hares & Retana Expires รป April 2005 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i].
TABLE of CONTENTS
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Results of Survey..............................................4
2.1 Differences................................................5
2.2 Implementations and interoperability.......................6
2.3 BGP Implementation Identification..........................7
3. BGP4 Implementation Report.....................................7
3.0 Summary of Operation / Section 3...........................7
3.1 Routes: Advertisement and Storage / Section 3.1............8
3.2 Routing Information Bases / Section 3.2....................9
3.3 Message Formats / Section 4................................9
3.4 Message Header Format / Section 4.1........................9
3.5 OPEN Message / Section 4.2................................11
3.6 UPDATE Message Format / Section 4.3.......................11
3.7 KEEPALIVE Message Format / Section 4.4....................15
3.8 NOTIFICATION Message Format / Section 4.5.................15
3.9 Path Attributes /Section 5................................16
3.10 ORIGIN / Section 5.1.1...................................19
3.11 AS_PATH / Section 5.1.2..................................20
3.12 NEXT_HOP / Section 5.1.3.................................21
3.13 MULTI_EXIT_DISC / Section 5.1.4..........................24
3.14 LOCAL_PREF / Section 5.1.5...............................26
3.15 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE / Section 5.1.6.........................28
3.16 AGGREGATOR / Section 5.1.7...............................29
3.17 BGP Error Handling / Section 6...........................30
3.18 Message Header Error Handling / Section 6.1..............30
3.19 OPEN message error handling / Section 6.2................32
3.20 UPDATE message error handling / Section 6.3..............35
3.21 NOTIFICATION message error handling / Section 6.4........44
3.22 Hold Timer Expired error handling / Section 6.5..........44
3.23 Finite State Machine error handling / Section 6.6........45
3.24 Cease / Section 6.7......................................45
3.25 BGP connection collision detection / Section 6.8.........46
3.26 BGP Version Negotiation / Section 7......................47
3.27 BGP Finite State machine (FSM) / Section 8...............48
3.28 Administrative Events / Section 8.1.2....................48
3.29 Timer Events / Section 8.1.3.............................53
3.30 TCP Connection based Events / Section 8.1.4..............55
3.31 BGP Messages based Events / Seciton 8.1.5................56
3.32 FSM Definition / Section 8.2.1...........................57
3.33 FSM and collision detection / Section 8.2.1.2............58
3.34 FSM Event numbers / Section 8.2.1.4......................58
3.35 Finite State Machine / Section 8.2.2.....................59
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.36 UPDATE Message Handling / Section 9......................59
3.37 Decision Process / Section 9.1...........................61
3.38 Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference / Section 9.1.1
..............................................................62
3.39 Phase 2: Route Selection / Section 9.1.2.................62
3.40 Route Resolvability Condition / Section 9.1.2.1..........64
3.41 Breaking Ties (Phase 2) / Section 9.1.2.2................65
3.42 Phase 3: Route Dissemination / Section 9.1.3.............66
3.43 Overlapping Routes / Section 9.1.4.......................67
3.44 Update-Send Process / Section 9.2........................69
3.45 Frequency of Route Advertisement / Section 9.2.1.1.......71
3.46 Aggregating Routing Information / Section 9.2.2.2........72
3.47 Route Selection Criteria / Section 9.3...................76
3.48 Originating BGP routes / Section 9.4.....................77
3.49 BGP Timers / Section 10..................................77
3.50 TCP options that may be used with BGP / Appendix E.......80
3.51 Reducing route flapping / Appendix F.2...................80
3.52 Complex AS_PATH aggregation / Appendix F.6...............81
3.53 Security Considerations..................................81
4. Additional BGP implementations Information....................81
4.1 Avici.....................................................81
4.2 Data Connection Ltd.......................................82
4.3 Nokia.....................................................83
Security Considerations..........................................8
4
Normative References.............................................84
Acknowledgments..................................................85
Authors' Addresses...............................................85
Intellectual Property Statement..................................85
Copyright Statement..............................................86
1.
Introduction
This document surveys implementations of BGP based on [BGP4]/RFCxxx.
RFCxxxx updates the BGP standard [RFC1771] to be in alignment with
the deployments of the BGP-4 protocols. BGP-4 as deployed in the
Internet encompasses both this base specification and additional
specifications such as TCP MD5 [RFC2385], BGP Route Reflectors [RFC
2796], BGP Confederations [RFC3065], and BGP Route Refresh [RFC
2918].
BGP as a widely deployed cornerstone of Internet technology
continues to add additional functionality as the needs within the
Internet requires. This survey has 259 detailed questions on the
compliance with the revised standard. 4 implementers (Alcatel,
Cisco, Laurel, NextHop) sent in implementation reports. Section 3
provides a compilation of those results.
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Section 2.1 provides an overview of the differences of between those
implementations. Section 2.2 provides an inter-operability of the 4
implementations.
Due to the large number of BGP implementations and the small number
of responses, the editors took an informal survey to determine if
the length of survey was an issue. Three implementers responded,
and all indicated the length of the survey was the issue. Section 3
gives this informal survey results.
The editors have compiled the submitted survey results and the
informal survey results based on the submitted information.
2.
Results of Survey
Significant Differences
For every item listed (259 questions), the respondents indicated
whether their implementation supports the Functionality/Description
or not (Y/N) indicated by the RFC2199 [RFC2119] language. Of the 259
questions in the survey, had two implementations giving an
affirmative response (two "y" or "y" and "O") except the following:
a) Must - Linked questions 212/213, regarding section 9.1.4
The linking of the questions lead to question 213 having three
vendors (Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop) give a "no" as the second
half of a question due to the format of the survey question.
(See the next section for details).
b) SHALL NOT - Question 228, regarding section 9.2.2.2
Three vendors (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel), answered "N" to shall
not (meaning they did). One vendor (NextHop) indicated "O"
matching the specification.
Text: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute
SHALL NOT be aggregated.
c) SHOULD - 2 in appendix F (questions 257, 258)
Three vendors said no, one vendor said yes to question 257.
All four vendors indicated no to question 258. (Please note
that Appendix F is text section for optional support.
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Text: Section F.2 - A BGP speaker which needs to withdraw a
destination and send an update about a more specific or
less specific route SHOULD combine them into the same
UPDATE message.
Text: Section F.6: The last instance (rightmost occurrence) of
that AS number is kept.
d) MAY - 1 in section 8.1.2.4, 1 in Section 10 (question 254)
Section 8: 3 "No", 1 yes
Text: "The Event numbers (1-28) utilized in this state machine
description aid in specifying the behavior of the BGP
state machine. Implementations MAY use these numbers to
provide network management information. The exact form of
a FSM or the FSM events are specific to each
implementation."
Editors note: Section 8.1.2.4 was written to allow existing
implementations to transition to the new event
numbering. It was expected over time (3 years)
that the FSM event numbering would be updated to
the new numbering.
Section 10: 3 "no"
Three vendors answered "no" configurable jitter time values.
One vendor indicated a configurable jitter timer value.
Text: A given BGP speaker MAY apply the same jitter to each of
these quantities regardless of the destinations to
which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need
not be configured on a "per peer" basis.
Question: Is the jitter range configurable?
2.1
Differences
The following section provides a list of sections where all answers
were not "yes". This section is provided to allow the reader a short
cut to the interesting points.
Differences are found in Subsections:
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
MUST
97, 106, 107, 111, 122, 125, 138, 141, 213
SHALL
233, 239
SHALL NOT
228
SHOULD
42, 117, 132, 146, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163,
164, 165, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 202, 225, 250, 255, 256
SHOULD NOT
226
MAY
67, 94, 121, 143, 180, 223, 247, 254
Other
236, 238
Linked Questions
212/213
Question 213 about the aggregation of routes had 3 "N" and 1
"Y". Questions 212 and 213 are grouped together.
Question 212 states:
"The decision process MUST either install both routes" or
Question 213:
"Aggregate the two routes and install the aggregated route,
provided that both routes have the same value of the
NEXT_HOP attribute"
The four respondents that said "Y" to question 212, said "N" to
questions 213. Given the context of the question, the "N" to
question 213 is appropriate.
2.2
Implementations and interoperability
Alcatel Cisco Laurel NextHop
Alcatel Y Y
Cisco Y
Laurel Y Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y Y
2.3
BGP Implementation Identification
1.6.0 Alcatel
Implementation Name/Version:
Alcatel 7750 BGP Implementation Release 1.3
Date: July 2003
Contact Name: Devendra Raut
Contact Email: Devendra.raut@Alcatel.com
1.6.1 Cisco
Implementation Name/Version: Cisco BGP Implementation, 12.0(27)S
Contact Name: Alvaro Retana
Date: 11/26/2003
1.6.2 Laurel
Implementation Name/Version: Laurel Networks 3.0
Contact Name: Man
ish Vora
Contact Email: vora@laurelnetworks.com
Date: 2/1/2004
1.6.3 NextHop Technologies
Implementation Name/Version: Gated NGC 2.0, 2.2
Date: January 2004
3.
BGP4 Implementation Report
For every item listed, the respondents indicated whether their
implementation supports the Functionality/Description or not (Y/N)
according to the RFC2119 [ii] language indicated. Any respondent
comments are included. If appropriate, the respondents indicated
with O the fact that the support is neither Y/N (an alternate
behavior, for example). Refer to the appropriate sections in [BGP4]
for additional details.
3.0 Summary of Operation / Section 3
3.0.1 Base Behavior
Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible with
the base behavior described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.0.2 Local Policy Changes
Functionality/Description: To allow local policy changes to have
the correct effect without resetting any BGP connections, a BGP
speaker SHOULD either (a) retain the current version of the
routes advertised to it by all of its peers for the duration of
the connection, or (b) make use of the Route Refresh extension
[RFC2918]
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.1
Routes: Advertisement and Storage / Section 3.1
3.1.3 Withdraw routes from service
Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the
three methods described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.1.4 Path attributes
Functionality/Description: Added to or modified before
advertising the route
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.2
Routing Information Bases / Section 3.2
3.2.5 Routing Information Bases
Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible
with the RIB structure described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.2.6 Next Hop Resolution
Functionality/Description: The next hop for each route in the
Loc-RIB MUST be resolvable via the local BGP speaker's Routing
Table
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.3
Message Formats / Section 4
3.3.7 Message Size
Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the
message sizes described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.4
Message Header Format / Section 4.1
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.4.8 Marker
Functionality/Description: MUST be set to all ones
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.4.9 Length
Functionality/Description: MUST always be at least 19 and no
greater than 4096
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.4.10 Length
Functionality/Description: MAY be further constrained, depending
on the message type
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.4.11 Message "padding"
Functionality/Description: No "padding" of extra data after the
message is allowed, so the Length field MUST have the smallest
value required given the rest of the message
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.5
OPEN Message / Section 4.2
3.5.12 Hold Timer Calculation
Functionality/Description: Use the smaller of its configured
Hold Time and the Hold Time received in the OPEN message
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.5.13 Minimum Hold Time
Functionality/Description: MUST be either zero or at least three
seconds
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.5.14 Connection Rejection
Functionality/Description: Based on the Hold Time
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Sends notification.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6
UPDATE Message Format / Section 4.3
3.6.15 UPDATE
Functionality/Description: Simultaneously advertise a feasible
route and withdraw multiple unfeasible routes from service
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We have capability to process this
functionality on receiving end but
we don't send feasible & unfeasible
simultaneously.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.16 Transitive Bit Setting
Functionality/Description: For well-known attributes, the
Transitive bit MUST be set to 1
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.17 Partial Bit Setting
Functionality/Description: For well-known attributes and for
optional non-transitive attributes the Partial bit MUST be set
to 0
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/C
omments: Y
3.6.18 Attribute Flags octet sending
Functionality/Description: Lower-order four bits set to zero
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.6.19 Attribute Flags octet receiving
Functionality/Description: Lower-order four bits ignored
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.20 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: Used as the next hop to the
destinations listed in the NLRI field of the UPDATE message
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.21 MULTI_EXIT_DISC
Functionality/Description: Used by a BGP speaker's decision
process to discriminate among multiple entry points to a
neighboring autonomous system
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.22 AGGREGATOR IP Address
Functionality/Description: Same address as the one used for the
BGP Identifier of the speaker
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default behavior. Can be configured
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
different from BGP ID.
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.23 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the
WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields
Functionality/Description: UPDATE messages SHOULD NOT include
that information
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.24 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the
WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields
Functionality/Description: The BGP speaker MUST be able to handle
them
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.6.25 UPDATE messages that include the same address prefix in the
WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields
Functionality/Description: Treated as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES
doesn't contain the address prefix
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Withdrawn routes are processed
before NLRI fields. Hence we get the
desired behavior.
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.7
KEEPALIVE Message Format / Section 4.4
3.7.26 Maximum KEEPALIVE frequency
Functionality/Description: Not greater than one second
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.7.27 KEEPALIVE messages rate
Functionality/Description: Adjusted as a function of the Hold
Time interval
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.7.28 Negotiated Hold Time of 0
Functionality/Description: No KEEPALIVEs sent
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.8
NOTIFICATION Message Format / Section 4.5
3.8.29 NOTIFICATION Message
Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the
NOTIFICATION Message as described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9
Path Attributes /Section 5
3.9.30 Path attributes
Functionality/Description: Does your implementation support the
path attributes as described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.31 Well-known attributes
Functionality/Description: Recognized by all BGP implementations
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.32 Mandatory Attributes
Functionality/Description: Included in every UPDATE message that
contains NLRI
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.33/34 Discretionary Attributes
Functionality/Description: Sent in a particular UPDATE message
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 16]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: MAY or MAY NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.35 Well-known attributes
Functionality/Description: Passed along (after proper updating,
if necessary) to other BGP peers
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.36 Optional Attributes
Functionality/Description: In addition to well-known attributes,
each path MAY contain one or more optional attributes
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.37 Unrecognized transitive optional attributes
Functionality/Description: Accepted
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.38 Partial Bit for unrecognized transitive optional attributes
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 17]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Functionality/Description: Set to 1 if the attribute is accepted
and pa
ssed to other BGP speakers
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.39 Unrecognized non-transitive optional attributes
Functionality/Description: Quietly ignored and not passed along
to other BGP peers
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.40 New transitive optional attributes
Functionality/Description: Attached to the path by the
originator or by any other BGP speaker in the path
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.41 Optional Attributes
Functionality/Description: Updated by BGP speakers in the path
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 18]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.9.42 Path Attributes
Functionality/Description: Ordered in ascending order of
attribute type
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O All attributes are ordered in
ascending order except Extended
Community, which is type 16 but we
send it out after community
attribute.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y except for MBGP which is always last
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.43 Out of order received path attributes
Functionality/Description: Receiver MUST be able to handle
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.9.44 Mandatory Attributes
Functionality/Description: Present in all exchanges if NLRI are
contained in the UPDATE message
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.10
ORIGIN / Section 5.1.1
3.10.45 ORIGIN
Functionality/Description: Value SHOULD NOT be changed by any
speaker, except the originator
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 19]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.11
AS_PATH / Section 5.1.2
3.11.46 AS_PATH
Functionality/Description: Not modified when advertising a route
to an internal peer
RFC2119: SHALL NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.11.47 Segment Overflow
Functionality/Description: If the act of prepending will cause
an overflow in the AS_PATH segment, i.e. more than 255 ASs, it
SHOULD prepend a new segment of type AS_SEQUENCE and prepend its
own AS number to this new segment
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.11.48 Prepending
Functionality/Description: The local system MAY include/prepend
more than one instance of its own AS number in the AS_PATH
attribute
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 20]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12
NEXT_HOP / Section 5.1.3
3.12.49 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: Used as the next hop to the
destinations listed in the UPDATE message
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.50 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: When sending a message to an internal
peer, if the route is not locally originated, the BGP speaker
SHOULD NOT modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been
explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the
NEXT_HOP
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.51 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: When announcing a locally originated
route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker SHOULD use as the
NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the
announced network is reachable for the speaker
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 21]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.12.52 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: If the route is directly connected to
the speaker, or the interface address of the router through
which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the
internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker SHOULD use for the
NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the
interface that is used to reach the peer)
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.53 "first party" NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: If the external peer to which the
route is being advertised shares a common subnet with one of the
interfaces of the announcing BGP speaker, the speaker MAY use
the IP address associated with such an interface in the NEXT_HOP
attribute
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.54 Default NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: IP address of the interface that the
speaker uses to establish the BGP connection to peer X
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.55 NEXT_HOP Propagation
Functionality/Description: The speaker MAY be configured to
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 22]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
propagate the NEXT_HOP attribute. In this case when advertising
a route that the speaker learned from one of its peers, the
NEXT_HOP attribute of the advertised route is exactly th
e same
as the NEXT_HOP attribute of the learned route (the speaker just
doesn't modify the NEXT_HOP attribute)
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.56 Third party NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: MUST be able to support disabling it
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.57 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: A route originated by a BGP speaker
SHALL NOT be advertised to a peer using an address of that peer
as NEXT_HOP
RFC2119: SHALL NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.58 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker SHALL NOT install a
route with itself as the next hop
RFC2119: SHALL NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 23]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.59 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: Used to determine the actual outbound
interface and immediate next-hop address that SHOULD be used to
forward transit packets to the associated destinations
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.60 Resolved NEXT_HOP IP Address
Functionality/Description: If the entry specifies an attached
subnet, but does not specify a next-hop address, then the
address in the NEXT_HOP attribute SHOULD be used as the
immediate next-hop address
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.12.61 Resolved NEXT_HOP IP Address
Functionality/Description: If the entry also specifies the
next-hop address, this address SHOULD be used as the immediate
next-hop address for packet forwarding
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.13
MULTI_EXIT_DISC / Section 5.1.4
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 24]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.13.62 Preferred metric
Functionality/Description: Lowest value
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.13.63 MULTI_EXIT_DISC
Functionality/Description: If received over EBGP, the
MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY be propagated over IBGP to other
BGP speakers within the same AS
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.13.64 MULTI_EXIT_DISC
Functionality/Description: If received from a neighboring AS, it
MUST NOT be propagated to other neighboring ASes
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.13.65 Remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC
Functionality/Description: Local configuration mechanism to
remove the attribute from a route
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 25]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.13.66 Remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC
Functionality/Description: Done prior to determining the degree
of preference of the route and performing route selection
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.13.67 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Alteration
Functionality/Description: An implementation MAY also (based on
local configuration) alter the value of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC
attribute received over EBGP
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.13.68 MULTI_EXIT_DISC Alteration
Functionality/Description: Done prior to determining the degree
of preference of the route and performing route selection
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.14
LOCAL_PREF / Section 5.1.5
3.14.69 LOCAL_PREF
Functionality/Description: Included in all UPDATE messages that
a given BGP speaker sends to the other internal peers
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 26]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.14.70 Degree of Preference
Functionality/Description: Calculated for each external route
based on the locally configured policy, and included when
advertising a route to its internal peers
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.14.71 LOCAL_PREF
Functionality/Description: Higher degree of preference MUST be
preferred
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.14.72 LOCAL_PREF
Functionality/Description: Not included in UPDATE messages sent
to external peers, except for the case of BGP Confederations
[RFC3065]
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 27]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.14.73 LOCAL_PREF
Functionality/Description: Ignored if received from an external
peer, except for the case of BGP Confederations [RFC3065]
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.15
ATOMIC_AGGREGATE / Section 5.1.6
3.15.74 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
Functionality/Description: Included if an aggregate excludes at
least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH of the
routes
that are aggregated as a result of dropping the AS_SET
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.15.75 Received ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
Functionality/Description: BGP speaker SHOULD NOT remove the
attribute from the route when propagating it to other speakers
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.15.76 Received ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
Functionality/Description: BGP speaker MUST NOT make any NLRI of
that route more specific (as defined in 9.1.4)
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 28]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.16
AGGREGATOR / Section 5.1.7
3.16.77 AGGREGATOR
Functionality/Description: Included in updates which are formed
by aggregation (see Section 9.2.2.2)
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.16.78 AGGREGATOR
Functionality/Description: Added by the BGP speaker performing
route aggregation
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.16.79 AGGREGATOR
Functionality/Description: Contain local AS number and IP
address
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default behavior. Can be configured
different from BGP ID.
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 29]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.16.80 AGGREGATOR IP Address
Functionality/Description: The same as the BGP Identifier of the
speaker
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.17
BGP Error Handling / Section 6
3.17.81 Error Handling
Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible
with the error handling procedures described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.17.82 Error Subcode
Functionality/Description: Zero, if it is not specified
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.18
Message Header Error Handling / Section 6.1
3.18.83 Message Header Errors
Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the NOTIFICATION
message with Error Code Message Header Error
RFC2119: MUST
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 30]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.18.84 Synchronization Error
Functionality/Description: Error Subcode MUST be set to
Connection Not Synchronized
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.18.85 Message Length
Functionality/Description: Use the Bad Message Length Error
Subcode to indicate an incorrect message length
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.18.86 Bad Message Length
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
erroneous Lentgh field
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.18.87 Type Field
Functionality/Description: If the Type field of the message
header is not recognized, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 31]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Bad Message Type
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.18.88 Bad Message Type
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
erroneous Type field
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19
OPEN message error handling / Section 6.2
3.19.89 OPEN Message Errors
Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the NOTIFICATION
message with Error Code OPEN Message Error
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.90 Version Number not Supported
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Unsupported Version Number
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 32]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.19.91 Unnacceptable Autonomous System Field
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad
Peer AS
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.92 Unacceptable Hold Time Error Subcode
Functionality/Description: Used if the Hold Time field of the
OPEN message is unacceptable
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.93 Hold Time Rejection
Functionality/Description: Values of one or two seconds
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.94 Hold Time Rejection
Functionality/Description: An implementation may reject any
proposed Hold Time
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 33]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 O
ctober 2004
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.95 Hold Time
Functionality/Description: If accepted, then the negotiated
value MUST be used
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.96 Syntactically Incorrect BGP Identifier
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to Bad
BGP Identifier
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.97 Not recognized Optional Parameters
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Unsupported Optional Parameters
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We may fix this.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.19.98 Recognized but Malformed Optional Parameters
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to 0
(Unspecific)
RFC2119: MUST
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 34]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20
UPDATE message error handling / Section 6.3
3.20.99 UPDATE Message Errors
Functionality/Description: Indicated by sending the
NOTIFICATION message with Error Code UPDATE Message Error
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.100 Too Large
Functionality/Description: If the Withdrawn Routes Length or
Total Attribute Length is too large, then the Error Subcode MUST
be set to Malformed Attribute List
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.101 Conflicting Flags
Functionality/Description: If any recognized attribute has
Attribute Flags that conflict with the Attribute Type Code, then
the Error Subcode MUST be set to Attribute Flags Error
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 35]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.20.102 Conflicting Flags
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
erroneous attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.103 Conflicting Length
Functionality/Description: If any recognized attribute has
Attribute Length that conflicts with the expected length, then
the Error Subcode MUST be set to Attribute Length Error
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.104 Conflicting Length
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
erroneous attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.105 Missing Mandatory Well-Known Attributes
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Missing Well-known Attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 36]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.106 Missing Mandatory Well-Known Attributes
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
Attribute Type Code of the missing well-known attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We plan to fix this in future.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.107 Unrecognized Mandatory Well-Known Attributes
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Unrecognized Well-known Attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We set error subcode to Attribute
Flags Error, but we intend to
correct this soon.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.108 Unrecognized Mandatory Well-Known Attributes
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
unrecognized attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.109 Undefined ORIGIN
Functionality/Description: The Error Sub-code MUST be set to
Invalid Origin Attribute
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 37]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.110 Undefined ORIGIN
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
unrecognized attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.111 Syntactically Incorrect NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Invalid NEXT_HOP Attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Ignores the prefix in case of
martian nexthop, and in case of
length not equal to IPv4
address-length, we send
NOTIFICATION with error subcode
Attribute Length error.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.112 Syntactically Incorrect NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
incorrect attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 38]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.113 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness
Functionality/Description: NEXT_HOP is checked for semantic
correctness against the criteria in this section
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.114 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness
Functionality/Description: Not be the IP address of the
receiving speaker
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.115 NEXT_HOP Semantic Correctness
Functionality/Description: In the case of an EBGP where the
sender and receiver are one IP hop away from each other, either
the IP address in the NEXT_HOP MUST be the sender's IP address
(that is used to establish the BGP connection), or the interface
associated with the NEXT_HOP IP address MUST share a common
subnet with the receiving BGP speaker
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.116 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 39]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Functionality/Description: Error logged
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.117 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: Route Ignored
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.118 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: NOTIFICATION not sent
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.119 Semantically incorrect NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: Connection not closed
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.120 Syntactically Incorrect AS_PATH
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 40]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Malformed AS_PATH
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.121 First Neighbor in AS_PATH check
Functionality/Description: If the UPDATE message is received
from an external peer, the local system MAY check whether the
leftmost AS in the AS_PATH attribute is equal to the autonomous
system number of the peer that sent the message
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.122 First Neighbor in AS_PATH check
Functionality/Description: If the check determines that this is
not the case, the Error Subcode MUST be set to Malformed AS_PATH
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.123 Optional Attributes
Functionality/Description: Value MUST be checked if the
attribute is recognized
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 41]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.20.124 Optional Attribute Error
Functionality/Description: The attribute MUST be discarded
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.125 Optional Attribute Error
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Optional Attribute Error
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N What exactly is optional attribute
e.g If error is flag related, we send
update flag error subcode, if it is
length related, we send update length
error subcode. These granular
subcodes are better in terms of
debugging than optional attribute
error.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Only optional attribute error that
doesn't have a more specific error,
is the version 3 to version 4 error
for the atomic aggregate. All others
default to more specific error codes
if implementation.
3.20.126 Optional Attribute Error
Functionality/Description: The Data field MUST contain the
attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 42]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.127 Duplicate Attributes
Functionality/Description: If any attribute appears more than
once in the UPDATE message, then the Error Subcode MUST be set
to Malformed Attribute List
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.128 Syntactically Incorrect NLRI Field
Functionality/Description: The Error Subcode MUST be set to
Invalid Network Field
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.129 Semantically Incorrect NLRI Field
Functionality/Description: An error SHOULD be logged locally
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.130 Semantically Incorrect NLRI Field
Functionality/Description: The prefix SHOULD be ignored
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 43]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.20.131 UPDATE with no NLRI
Functionality/Description: An UPDATE message that contains
correct path attributes, but no NLRI, SHALL be treated as a
valid UPDATE message
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.21
NOTIFICATION message error handling / Section 6.4
3.21.132 Error in NOTIFICATION message
Functionality/Description: Noticed, logged locally, and brought
to the attention of the administration of the peer
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.22
Hold Timer Expired error handling / Section 6.5
3.22.133 Hold Timer Expired
Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible
with the error handling procedures described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 44]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.23
Finite State Machine error handling / Section 6.6
3.23.134 Finite State Machine Errors
Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible
with the error handling procedures described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.24
Cease / Section 6.7
3.24.135 Cease NOTIFICATION
Functionality/Description: Used in absence of any fatal errors
if a BGP peer chooses at any given time to close its BGP
connection
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We close the TCP session without
CEASE NOTIFICATION.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.24.136 Cease NOTIFICATION
Functionality/Description: Not used for specified fatal errors
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.24.137 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is
willing to accept from a neighbor
Functionality/Description: Support by local configuration
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 45]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.24.138 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is
willing to accept from a neighbor
Functionality/Description: If exceeded and the BGP speaker
decides to terminate its BGP connection, the Cease NOTIFICATION
MUST be used
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We don't send CEASE but we plan to
correct that soon.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y No termination of peers is supported
We are considering support with the
maximum prefix draft for later
releases.
3.24.139 Upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is
willing to accept from a neighbor
Functionality/Description: Log locally
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.25
BGP connection collision detection / Section 6.8
3.25.140 Connection Collision
Functionality/Description: One of the connections MUST be closed
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 46]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.25.141 Receipt of an OPEN message
Functionality/Description: The local system MUST examine all of
its connections that are in the OpenConfirm state
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We detect collision through some
other implementation specific way
and resolve by method specified in
draft.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.25.142 Receipt of an OPEN message
Functionality/Description: Examine connections in an OpenSent
state if it knows the BGP Identifier of the peer by means
outside of the protocol
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.26
BGP Version Negotiation / Section 7
3.26.143 Version Negotiation
Functionality/Description: Multiple attempts to open a BGP
connection, starting with the highest version number each
supports
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Supports only version 4
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We resolve it through config. If
Config is for version 3, and we get
version 4, OPEN will always fail.
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 47]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Similarly, if configed (default) is
version 4 and peers configured is 3,
we don't try to negotiate version 3
unless we have configured it.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N Supports only version 4.
3.26.144 Future versions of BGP
Functionality/Description: MUST retain the format of the OPEN
and NOTIFICATION messages
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.27
BGP Finite State machine (FSM) / Section 8
3.27.145 FSM
Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible
with the conceptual FSM described in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28
Administrative Events / Section 8.1.2
3.28.146 Optional Session Attribute Settings
Functionality/Description: Each event has an indication of what
optional session attributes SHOULD be set at each stage
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Its rather vague. We have an option
Of manually starting or stopping
sessions but not an option for all
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 48]
draft-iet
f-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
optional session attributes that are
listed in draft.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y The following optional attributes
are implied in this implementation:
1) Automatic start, 2) Automatic
Stop, 3)
3.28.147 Event1: ManualStart
Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute
SHOULD be set to FALSE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.148 Event3: AutomaticStart
Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.149 Event3: AutomaticStart
Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment optional
session attribute SHOULD be set to FALSE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.150 Event3: AutomaticStart
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 49]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Functionality/Description: DampPeerOscillations SHOULD be set to
FALSE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute, so it is always FALSE.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.151 Event4: ManualStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y We wait for some fixed time before
initiating OPEN.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.152 Event4: ManualStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute
SHOULD be set to FALSE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute so it is FALSE.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O We don't support DampPeerOscilation
attribute with a setting of off, and
hence Event 4. Future version will
support Event 4
3.28.153 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 50]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.154 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.155 Event5: AutomaticStart_with_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations SHOULD be
set to FALSE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute, so always FALSE.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O We don't support DampPeerOscilation
attribute with a setting of off, and
hence Event 5. Future version will
support Event 5
3.28.156 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations
Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 51]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.157 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations
Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.158 Event6: AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations
Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute
SHOULD be set to FALSE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute and hence Event6.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.159 Event 7:
AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStart attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute and hence Event7
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.160 Event 7:
AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 52]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Functionality/Description: The DampPeerOscillations attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute and hence Event7
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.161 Event 7:
AutomaticStart_with_DampPeerOscillations_and_PassiveTcpEstablishment
Functionality/Description: The PassiveTcpEstablishment attribute
SHOULD be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute and hence Event7
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.28.162 Event8: AutomaticStop
Functionality/Description: The AllowAutomaticStop attribute
SH
OULD be TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.29
Timer Events / Section 8.1.3
3.29.163 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires
Functionality/Description: DelayOpen attribute SHOULD be set to
TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 53]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.29.164 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires
Functionality/Description: DelayOpenTime attribute SHOULD be
supported
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.29.165 Event12: DelayOpenTimer_Expires
Functionality/Description: DelayOpenTimer SHOULD be supported
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.29.166 Event13: IdleHoldTimer_Expires
Functionality/Description: DampPeerOscillations attribute SHOULD
be set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute and hence Event13
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.29.167 Event13: IdleHoldTimer_Expires
Functionality/Description: IdleHoldTimer SHOULD have just
expired
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 54]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O Don't support DampPeerOscillations
attribute and hence Event13
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.30
TCP Connection based Events / Section 8.1.4
3.30.168 Event14: TcpConnection_Valid
Functionality/Description: BGP's destination port SHOULD be port
179
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.30.169 Event14: TcpConnection_Valid
Functionality/Description: The TrackTcpState attribute SHOULD be
set to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 provides hooks for
the TCP state tracking, but use of
this option depends OS support.
Future versions will have additional
hooks.
3.30.170 Event15: Tcp_CR_Invalid
Functionality/Description: BGP destination port number SHOULD be
179
RFC2119: SHOULD
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 55]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 provides hooks for
the TCP state tracking, but use of
this option depends OS support.
Future versions will have additional
hooks.
3.31
BGP Messages based Events / Seciton 8.1.5
3.31.171 Event19: BGPOpen
Functionality/Description: The DelayOpen optional attribute
SHOULD be set to FALSE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.31.172 Event19: BGPOpen
Functionality/Description: The DelayOpenTimer SHOULD not be
running
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.31.173 Event20: BGPOpen with DelayOpenTimer running
Functionality/Description: The DelayOpen attribute SHOULD be set
to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N Not applicable
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 56]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.31.174 Event20: BGPOpen with DelayOpenTimer running
Functionality/Description: The DelayOpenTimer SHOULD be running
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: n/a
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.31.175 Event23: OpenCollisionDump
Functionality/Description: If the state machine is to process
this event in Established state, the
CollisionDetectEstablishedState optional attribute SHOULD be set
to TRUE
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Collision detection event is logged.
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We always detect collision before we
go to established state.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O GateD NGC 2.0 does not support
Collision Detection in Established
state. This option attribute is
always set to FALSE.
3.32
FSM Definition / Section 8.2.1
3.32.176 FSM
Functionality/Description: Separate FSM for each configured peer
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.32.177 TCP Port 179
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 57]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Functionality/Description: A BGP implementation MUST connect to
and listen on TCP port 179 for incoming connections in addition
to trying to connect to peers
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.32.178 Incoming Connections
Functionality/Description: A state machine MUST be instantiated
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.33
FSM and collision detection / Section 8.2.1.2
3.33.179 Connection Collision
Functionality/Description: The corresponding FSM for the
connection that is closed SHOULD be disposed of
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel
Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.34
FSM Event numbers / Section 8.2.1.4
3.34.180 Event Numbers
Functionality/Description: Used to provide network management
information
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Not visible to operator.
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 58]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N Future Release of GateD NGC may
support event numbers.
3.35
Finite State Machine / Section 8.2.2
3.35.181 ConnectRetryTimer
Functionality/Description: Sufficiently large to allow TCP
initialization
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.35.182 2nd connection tracking
Functionality/Description: In response to a TCP connection
succeeds [Event 16 or Event 17], the 2nd connection SHALL be
tracked until it sends an OPEN message
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.36
UPDATE Message Handling / Section 9
3.36.183 UPDATE Message Handling
Functionality/Description: Does your implementation handle
UPDATE messages in a manner compatible to the description in
this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 59]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.36.184 WITHDRAWN ROUTES
Functionality/Description: Any previously advertised routes
whose destinations are contained in this field SHALL be removed
from the Adj-RIB-In
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.36.185 WITHDRAWN ROUTES
Functionality/Description: The BGP speaker SHALL run its
Decision Process since the previously advertised route is no
longer available for use
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.36.186 Implicit withdraw
Functionality/Description: If an UPDATE message contains a
feasible route, and the NLRI of the new route is identical to
the one of a route currently stored in the Adj-RIB-In, then the
new route SHALL replace the older route
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.36.187 Other feasible routes
Functionality/Description: If an UPDATE message contains a
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 60]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
feasible route, and the NLRI of the new route is not identical
to the one of any route currently stored in the Adj-RIB-In, then
the new route SHALL be placed in the Adj-RIB-In
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.36.188 Adj-RIB-In Update
Functionality/Description: Once a BGP speaker updates the
Adj-RIB-In, it SHALL run its Decision Process
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.37
Decision Process / Section 9.1
3.37.189 Decision Process
Functionality/Description: Is your implementation compatible
with the description in this section?
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.37.190 Degree of Preference
Functionality/Description: SHALL NOT use as its inputs any of
the following: the existence of other routes, the non-existence
of other routes, or the path attributes of other routes
RFC2119: SHALL NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 61]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.38
Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference / Section 9.1.1
3.38.191 Ineligible degree of preference
Functionality/Description: The route MAY NOT serve as an input
to the next phase of route selection
RFC2119: MAY NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.38.192 Eligible degree of preference
Functionality/Description: Used as the LOCAL_PREF value in any
IBGP readvertisement
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.39
Phase 2: Route Selection / Section 9.1.2
3.39.193 Unresolvable NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP
route depicts an address that is not resolvable, or it would
become unresolvable if the route was installed in the routing
table the BGP route MUST be excluded
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 62]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.39.194 Routes installed in LOC-RIB
Functionality/Description: The route in the Adj-RIBs-In
identified as the best (see section 9.1.2) is installed in the
Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is
currently being held in the Loc-RIB
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.39.195 Immediate next-hop address
Functionality/Description: MUST be determined from the NEXT_HOP
attribute of the selected route (see Section 5.1.3)
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.39.196 Phase 2: Route Selection
Functionality/Description: Performed again if either the
immediate next hop or the IGP cost to the NEXT_HOP changes
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.39.197 Immediate next-hop address
Functionality/Description: Used for packet forwarding
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 63]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.39.198 Unresolvable routes
Functionality/Description: Removed from the Loc-RIB and the
routing table
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.39.199 Unresolvable routes
Functionality/Description: Kept in the corresponding Adj-RIBs-In
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.40
Route Resolvability Condition / Section 9.1.2.1
3.40.200 Unresolvable routes
Functionality/Description: Excluded from the Phase 2 decision
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.40.201 Multiple Matching Routes
Functionality/Description: Only the longest matching route
SHOULD be considered
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 64]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.40.202 Mutual Recursion
Functionality/Description: If a route fails the resolvability
check because of mutual recursion, an error message SHOULD be
logged
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We have checks that disallow mutual
recursion, so this won't happen.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.41
Breaking Ties (Phase 2) / Section 9.1.2.2
3.41.203 Tie-breaking criteria
Functionality/Description: Applied in the order specified
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.41.204 Algorithm used
Functionality/Description: BGP implementations MAY use any
algorithm which produces the same results asthose described here
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 65]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.41.205 MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal
Functionality/Description: If done before re-advertising a route
into IBGP, then comparison based on the received EBGP
MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY still be performed
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.41.206 MULTI_EXIT_DISC removal
Functionality/Description: The optional comparison on
MULTI_EXIT_DISC if performed at all MUST be performed only among
EBGP learned routes
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.41.207 MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparison
Functionality/Description: Performed for IBGP learned routes
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.42
Phase 3: Route Dissemination / Section 9.1.3
3.42.208 Policy for processing routes from the Loc-RIB into Adj-RIBs-
Out
Functionality/Description: Exclude a route in the Loc-RIB from
being installed in a particular Adj-RIB-Out
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 66]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.42.209 Adj-Rib-Out Route Installation
Functionality/Description: Not unless the destination and
NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded appropriately
by the Routing Table
RFC2119: SHALL NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.42.210 Withdraw routes
Functionality/Description: If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded
from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in
that Adj-RIB-Out MUST be withdrawn from service by means of an
UPDATE message (see 9.2)
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.43
Overlapping Routes / Section 9.1.4
3.43.211 Overlapping Routes
Functionality/Description: Consider both routes based on the
configured acceptance policy
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 67]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.43.212 Accepted Overlapping Routes
Functionality/Description: The Decision Process MUST either
install both routes or...
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.43.213 Accepted Overlapping Routes
Functionality/Description: Aggregate the two routes and install
the aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same
value of the NEXT_HOP attribute
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We install both in Local RIB.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N no automatic aggregation
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N no automatic aggregation
3.43.214 Aggregation
Functionality/Description: Either include all ASs used to form
the aggreagate in an AS_SET or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
attribute to the route
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.43.215 De-aggregation
Functionality/Description: Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 68]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.43.216 Route with the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute
Functionality/Description: Not de-aggregated
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.44
Update-Send Process / Section 9.2
3.44.217 UPDATE message received from an internal peer
Functionality/Description: Not re-distribute the routing
information to other internal peers, unless the speaker acts as
a BGP Route Reflector [RFC2796]
RFC2119: SHALL NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.44.218 No replacement route
Functionality/Description: All newly installed routes and all
newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route
SHALL be advertised to its peers by means of an UPDATE message
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 69]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.44.219 Previously Advertised Routes
Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker SHOULD NOT advertise a
given feasible BGP route if it would produce an UPDATE message
containing the same BGP route as was previously advertised
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.44.220 Unfeasible routes
Functionality/Description: Removed from the Loc-RIB
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.44.221 Changes to reachable destinations
Functionality/Description: Changes to the reachable destinations
within its own autonomous system SHALL also be advertised in an
UPDATE message
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.44.222 A single route doesn't fit into the UPDATE message
Functionality/Description: Don't advertise
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 70]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.44.223 A single route doesn't fit into the UPDATE message
Functionality/Description: Log an error local
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.45
Frequency of Route Advertisement / Section 9.2.1.1
3.45.224 MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer
Functionality/Description: Minimum separation between two UPDATE
messages sent by a BGP speaker to a peer that advertise feasible
routes and/or withdrawal of unfeasible routes to some common set
of destinations
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.45.225 Fast Convergence
Functionality/Description: MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer
used for internal peers SHOULD be shorter than the
MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for external peers, or
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Configurable on per peer basis.
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N they are same for ebgp and ibgp
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Configuration option allows to set
the time per peer.
3.45.226 Fast Convergence
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 71]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Functionality/Description: The procedure describes in this
section SHOULD NOT apply for routes sent to internal peers
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: O Operator has to ensure that through
configuration.
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y Default setting is off for BGP
peers.
3.45.227 MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer
Functionality/Description: The last route selected SHALL be
advertised at the end of MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46
Aggregating Routing Information / Section 9.2.2.2
3.46.228 MULTI_EXIT_DISC
Functionality/Description: Routes that have different
MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated
RFC2119: SHALL NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.229 AS_SET as the First Element
Functionality/Description: If the aggregated route has an AS_SET
as the first element in its AS_PATH attribute, then the router
that originates the route SHOULD NOT advertise the
MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute with this route
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 72]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.230 NEXT_HOP
Functionality/Description: When aggregating routes that have
different NEXT_HOP attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the
aggregated route SHALL identify an interface on the BGP speaker
that performs the aggregation
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.231 ORIGIN INCOMPLETE
Functionality/Description: Used if at least one route among
routes that are aggregated has ORIGIN with the value INCOMPLETE
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.232 ORIGIN EGP
Functionality/Description: Used if at least one route among
routes that are aggregated has ORIGIN with the value EGP
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 73]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.46.233 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes
Functionality/Description: The aggregated AS_PATH attribu
te
SHALL satisfy all of the following conditions: ...
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.234 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes
Functionality/Description: All tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE in the
aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in all of the AS_PATH in the
initial set of routes to be aggregated
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.235 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes
Functionality/Description: All tuples of type AS_SET in the
aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in at least one of the AS_PATH
in the initial set
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.236 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes
Functionality/Description: For any tuple X of type AS_SEQUENCE
in the aggregated AS_PATH which precedes tuple Y in the
aggregated AS_PATH, X precedes Y in each AS_PATH in the initial
set which contains Y, regardless of the type of Y
RFC2119: N/A
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 74]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.237 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes
Functionality/Description: No tuple of type AS_SET with the same
value SHALL appear more than once in the aggregated AS_PATH
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.238 Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes
Functionality/Description: Multiple tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE
with the same value may appear in the aggregated AS_PATH only
when adjacent to another tuple of the same type and value
RFC2119: N/A
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.239 AS_PATH Aggregation Algorithm
Functionality/Description: Able to perform the (minimum)
algorithm described in 9.2.2.2.
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N We don't do merging.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.240 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
Functionality/Description: The aggregated route SHALL have this
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 75]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
attribute if at least one of the routes to be aggregated has it
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.241 AGGREGATOR
Functionality/Description: Attribute from routes to be
aggregated MUST NOT be included in aggregated route
RFC2119: MUST NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.46.242 AGGREGATOR
Functionality/Description: Attach a new one when aggregating
(see Section 5.1.7)
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.47
Route Selection Criteria / Section 9.3
3.47.243 Unstable routes
Functionality/Description: Avoid using them
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 76]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.47.244 Route changes
Functionality/Description: SHOULD NOT make rapid spontaneous
changes to the choice of route
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.48
Originating BGP routes / Section 9.4
3.48.245 Non-BGP acquired routes
Functionality/Description: Distributed to other BGP speakers
within the local AS as part of the update process
(see Section 9.2)
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.48.246 Non-BGP acquired routes
Functionality/Description: Distribution controlled via
configuration
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.49
BGP Timers / Section 10
3.49.247 Optional Timers
Functionality/Description: Two optional timers MAY be supported:
DelayOpenTimer, IdleHoldTimer by BGP
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 77]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We support DelayOpenTimer but not
IdleHoldTimer
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y support IdleHoldTimer but not the
DelayOpenTimer
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.49.248 Hold Time
Functionality/Description: Configurable on a per peer basis
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.49.249 Timers
Functionality/Description: Allow the other timers to be
configurable
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.49.250 Jitter
Functionality/Description: Applied to the timers associated with
MinASOriginationInterval, KeepAlive,
MinRouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: O We only apply to ConnectRetry.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 78]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.49.251 Jitter
Functionality/Description: Apply the same jitter to each of
these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the
updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured
on a "per peer" basis
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y We app
ly same only for connectretry.
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.49.252 Default amount of jitter
Functionality/Description: Determined by multiplying the base
value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is
uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0
RFC2119: SHALL
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Range is 0.9 to 1.1
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.49.253 Default amount of jitter
Functionality/Description: New random value picked each time the
timer is set
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
3.49.254 Jitter Random Value Range
Functionality/Description: Configurable
RFC2119: MAY
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 79]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N
3.50
TCP options that may be used with BGP / Appendix E
3.50.255 TCP PUSH function supported
Functionality/Description: Each BGP message SHOULD be
transmitted with PUSH flag set
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O Depends on the TCP stack support.
GateD 10, NGC can run over
multiple stacks.
3.50.256 DSCP Field Support
Functionality/Description: TCP connections opened with bits 0-2
of the DSCP field set to 110 (binary)
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: O Depends on the TCP stack support.
GateD 10, NGC can run over
multiple stacks.
3.51
Reducing route flapping / Appendix F.2
3.51.257 Avoid excessive route flapping
Functionality/Description: A BGP speaker which needs to withdraw
a destination and send an update about a more specific or less
specific route SHOULD combine them into the same UPDATE message
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 80]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
3.52
Complex AS_PATH aggregation / Appendix F.6
3.52.258 Multiple instances in AS_PATH
Functionality/Description: The last instance (rightmost
occurrence) of that AS number is kept
RFC2119: SHOULD
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: N We use algorithm in 9.2.2.2
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: N
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N
3.53
Security Considerations
3.53.259 Authentication Mechanism
Functionality/Description: RFC2385
RFC2119: MUST
Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y
Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y
NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y
4.
Additional BGP implementations Information
Three implementations responded to a call (5/20/04-6/2/04) for
information on those implementations that had a BGP implementation,
but did not complete the full survey. The responses for the call for
additional information are below.
4.1
Avici
If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an
implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send
me the answer the following questions:
1) BGP product
Contributor (your name):Curtis Villamizar [curtis@fictitious.org]
Company: Avici
name of product: IPriori (TM)
minor version: No interoperability problems with any version.
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 81]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Current deployed versions are 5.x and 6.0.x.
Version 6.1 and beyond are tested against the
latest BGP draft soon to replace rfc1771.
2) What other implementations you interoperate with.
Cisco: IOS 12.0(22)
Juniper: JUNOS (version not given)
3) Do you inter-operate with:
1) Alcatel BGP (release) - not tested
2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s - not tested
tested with IOS 12.0(22); BGP is the same
3) laurel BGP (specify release) - not tested
4) NextHop GateD- not tested
4) Did the length of the survey for BGP cause you to not
submit the BGP implementation report?
yes
4.2
Data Connection Ltd.
If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an
implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send
me the answer the following questions:
1) BGP product
Contributor (your name): Mike Dell
Company: Data Connection Ltd.
name of product: DC-BGP
version and minor of software: v1.1
release date: April 2003
2) What other implementations you interoperate with.
Cisco (12.0(26)S)
Alcatal (7770 0BX)
Agilent (Router Tester)
Ixia (1600T)
Netplane (Powercode)
Nortel (Shasta 5000 BSN)
Redback (SmartEdge 800)
Riverstone (RS8000)
Spirent (AX4000)
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 82]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
IP Infusion (ZebOs)
Nokia (IP400)
Juniper (M5)
3) Do you inter-operate with
1) Alcatel BGP (release) YES
2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s
Unknown, but we do inter-operate with v12.0(26)s
3) laurel BGP (specify release) Unknown
4) NextHop GateD YES
4) Did the length of the survey for BGP
cause you to not submit the BGP
implementation report?
YES
4.3
Nokia
If you have an implementation of BGP and you did not send in an
implementation report (answering the 259 questions), could you send
me the answer the following questions:
1) BGP product
Contributor (your name):Rahul Bahadur
(rahul.bahadur@nokia.com)
Company: Nokia
Name of product: IP Security Platforms
Version and minor of software IPSO 3.8 Build031
Release date May 24, 2004
2) What other implementations you interoperate with.
Cisco: IOS 12.3(1)
Extreme: Extremeware Version 6.1.7 (Build 9)
Foundry: SW Version 07.5.05iT53
Juniper: JUNOS 5.3R1.2
Nortel: BayRS 15.4.0.1
GNU Zebra: zebra-0.92a
3) Do you inter-operate with
1) Alcatel BGP (release) - not tested
2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s - yes
3) laurel BGP (specify release) - not tested
4) NextHop GateD- not tested
Hares &
Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 83]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
4) Did the length of the survey for BGP
cause you to not submit the BGP implementation report?
Yes - lack of resources to help with task.
Security Considerations
This document does not address any security issues.
Normative References
[BGP4] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt, June 2004
[RFC1771] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", RFC1771, March 1995
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, March 1997
[RFC2385] A. Heffernan, "Protection of BGP Session via a TCP MD5
Signature", RFC2385, August 1998
[RFC2796] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Chen, E., "BGP Route Reflection -
an Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000
[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC2918,
September 2000
[RFC3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., Scudder, J., "Autonomous
Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
February 2004
[RFC3668] Bradner, S. "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, February 2004
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 84]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Acknowledgments
Alcatel Responses provided by:
Contact Name: Devendra Raut
Contact Email: Devendra.raut@Alcatel.com
Cisco Systems Responses provided by:
Contact Name: Himanshu Shah, Ruchi Kapoor
Contact e-mail Address: hhshah@cisco.com, ruchi@cisco.com
Laurel Responses provided by:
Contact Name: Manish Vora
Contact e-mail Address: vora@laurelnetworks.com
NextHop Responses provided by:
Contact Name: Susan Hares
Contact e-mail Address: skh@nexthop.com
Additional Help: Matt Richardson, Shane Wright.
Authors' Addresses
Susan Hares
NextHop Technologies
825 Victors Way, Suite 100
Phone: 734.222.1610
Email: skh@nexthop.com
Alvaro Retana
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: 919 392 2061
e-mail: aretana@cisco.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 85]
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-02 October 2004
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Hares & Retana Expires -April 2005 [Page 86]