Network Working Group Enke Chen Internet Draft Redback Networks Expiration Date: November 2004 Editor BGP Route Reflection - Implementation Report draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt 1. Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 2. Abstract This document provides an implementation report for the BGP Route Relection. Chen [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004 3. Summary This document provides an implementation report for the BGP Route Reflection [1]. Each response is listed. The editor makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided. The following organizations reported having implementations of the BGP Route Reflection: Alcatel, Alcatel Networks, Nexthop Technologies, and Redback Networks. 4. Implementation Forms 4.1. Alcatel Person filling out this form: Brian Winger Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP peer? Yes Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document? Yes Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as specified in the document? Yes Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route reflection? Yes Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes into account in route selection as specified in the document? No List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route Chen [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004 Reflection interoperability. Cisco, Juniper 4.2. Alcatel Networks Person filling out this form: Devendra Raut Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP peer? Yes. Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document? Yes. Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as specified in the document? Yes. Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route reflection? Yes. Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes into account in route selection as specified in the document? Yes. List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route Reflection interoperability. Juniper & Cisco. Chen [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004 4.3. NextHop Technologies, Inc. Person filling out this form: Jeffrey Haas Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP peer? Yes Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document? Yes Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as specified in the document? Yes Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route reflection? Yes Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes into account in route selection as specified in the document? This can be optionally configured. List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route Reflection interoperability. Cisco, Juniper 4.4. Redback Networks Person filling out this form: Jenny Yuan (jenny@redback.com) Does your implementation follow the procedures specified in the Operation Section when advertising an IBGP learned route to an IBGP peer? Yes Chen [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004 Does your implementation recognize the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) defined in the document? Yes Does your implementation perform routing information loop detection based on the ORIGINATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes as specified in the document? Yes Does your implementation format the two new attributes (ORIGINATOR_ID and CLUSTER_LIST) as specified in the document when doing route reflection? Yes Does your implementation take the ORIGNATOR_ID and the CLUSTER_LIST attributes into account in route selection as specified in the document? Yes List other implementations that you have tested for BGP Route Reflection interoperability. Cisco, Juniper 5. Security Considerations This document does not address any security issues. 6. IANA Considerations No parameters are defined in this document. Chen [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-chen-bgp-rfc2796bis-survey-00.txt May 2004 7. References [1] T. Bates, R. Chandra and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-00.txt, March 2004. 8. Author Information Enke Chen Redback Networks, Inc. 300 Holger Way San Jose, CA 95134 Email: enke@redback.com Chen [Page 6]