Network Working Group B. Venkatachalapathy Internet-Draft K. Patel Intended status: Experimental Cisco Systems Expires: June 15, 2014 R. Raszuk P. Hiremath NTT I3 December 12, 2013 Enhanced Route Refresh Implementation Report draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00 Abstract This document provides an implementation report for Enhanced Route refresh as defined in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh. The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for which their responses represent. Requirements Language 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 [RFC2119]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on June 15, 2014. Copyright Notice Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Implementation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Support for Enhanced Route Refresh Capability . . . . . . 3 2.2. Support for Route Refresh Message Subtypes . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Enhanced Route Refresh Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.4. Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction It is sometimes necessary to perform routing consistency validations such as checking for possible missing withdraws between BGP speakers [RFC4271]. Currently such validations typically involve off-line, manual operations which can be tedious and time consuming. BGP Enhanced Route Refresh enhances the existing BGP route refresh mechanism to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the ending of a route refresh (which refers to the complete re- advertisement of the Adj-RIB-Out to a peer, subject to routing policies). BGP Enhanced Route refresh can be used to facilitate on- line, non-disruptive consistency validation of BGP routing updates. This document provides an implementation report for BGP Enhanced Route Refresh as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh]. The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013 with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for which their responses represent. 2. Implementation Forms Contact and implementation information for person filling out this form: Name: Keyur Patel, Email: keyupate@cisco.com, Vendor: Cisco Systems, Inc. Release: IOS Name: Balaji Venkatachalapathy, Email: bvenkata@cisco.com, Vendor: Cisco Systems, Inc. Release: IOS Name: Robert Raszuk, Email: robert@raszuk.net, Vendor: NTT I3. Release: APGW Automation Name: Prashant Hiremath, Email: prashant@ntti3.com, Vendor: NTT I3. Release: APGW Automation 2.1. Support for Enhanced Route Refresh Capability Does the implementation support Sec.2.1. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] Support for Enhanced Route Refresh Capability? Cisco: YES NTT I3: YES 2.2. Support for Route Refresh Message Subtypes Does the implementation support Sec.2.2. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] Subtypes for Route-Refresh messaage? Cisco: YES NTT I3: YES 2.3. Enhanced Route Refresh Operations Does the implementation support Sec.3. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] procedures for starting a route refresh? Cisco: YES Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013 NTT I3: YES Does the implementation support Sec.3. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] procedures for examining route refresh message subtypes and take appropriate actions? Cisco: YES NTT I3: YES 2.4. Interoperable Implementations List other implementations that you have tested interoperability of Diverse Path Cisco IOS NTT I3 3. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. 4. Security considerations No new security issues are introduced to the BGP protocol by this specification. 5. Acknowledgements 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic", RFC 4223, October 2005. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 6.2. Informative References Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00.txt December 2013 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] Patel, K., Chen, E., and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", draft-ietf-idr-bgp- enhanced-route-refresh-04 (work in progress), June 2013. Authors' Addresses Balaji Venkatachalapathy Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 US Email: bvenkata@cisco.com Keyur Patel Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 US Email: keyupate@cisco.com Robert Raszuk NTT I3 101 S. Ellsworth Ave San Mateo, CA 94401 USA Email: robert@raszuk.net Prashant P. Hiremath NTT I3 101 S. Ellsworth Ave San Mateo, CA 94401 USA Email: prashant@ntti3.com Venkatachalapathy, et al. Expires June 15, 2014 [Page 5]