IDR Working Group E. Jasinska Internet-Draft Netflix, Inc Intended status: Informational February 2, 2015 Expires: August 6, 2015 Internet Exchange Route Server - Implementation Report draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-implementation-00 Abstract This document provides a survey of Internet Exchange Route Server implementations. 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 August 6, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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. Jasinska Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server - Implementation February 2015 Table of Contents 1. Survey Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Survey Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Cisco Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. BIRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Quagga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Jasinska Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server - Implementation February 2015 1. Survey Summary This document provides a survey of Internet Exchange Route Server implemengations [I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server]. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editor makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided. The following organizations reported having implementations of Internet Exchange Route Server: Cisco Systems, BIRD and Quagga. All Route Server implementations adhere to the specifications described in [I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server]. All implementations provide the means for per-peer policy control. Multiple test studies have been published on resource consumption of Route Server implementations of the various vendors, e.g.: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/ Jasinska_RouteServer_N48.pdf 2. Survey Forms 2.1. Cisco Systems Person filling out this form: Robert Raszuk Does your Route Server implementation do the following as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server]? o Accept, process and forward client UPDATE messages according to Section 2.1? YES o Perform attribute transparency according to Section 2.2? YES o Allow for per-client routing policy control without path hiding using one of the methods described in Section 2.3.2? YES Jasinska Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server - Implementation February 2015 2.2. BIRD Person filling out this form: Ondrej Filip Does your Route Server implementation do the following as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server]? o Accept, process and forward client UPDATE messages according to Section 2.1? YES o Perform attribute transparency according to Section 2.2? YES o Allow for per-client routing policy control without path hiding using one of the methods described in Section 2.3.2? YES 2.3. Quagga Person filling out this form: David Lamparter Does your Route Server implementation do the following as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server]? o Accept, process and forward client UPDATE messages according to Section 2.1? YES o Perform attribute transparency according to Section 2.2? YES o Allow for per-client routing policy control without path hiding using one of the methods described in Section 2.3.2? YES 3. Security Considerations None. Jasinska Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IX BGP Route Server - Implementation February 2015 4. References 4.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server] Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker, "Internet Exchange Route Server", draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-06 (work in progress), December 2014. 4.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Author's Address Elisa Jasinska Netflix, Inc 100 Winchester Circle Los Gatos, CA 95032 USA Email: elisa@netflix.com Jasinska Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 5]