RFC 4276
BGP-4 Implementation Report
Pages: 97
Informational
Informational
Part 4 of 4 – Pages 67 to 97
3.36. UPDATE Message Handling / Section 9 [RFC4271]
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 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 WITHDRAWN ROUTES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: Y3.36.185. WITHDRAWN ROUTES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: Y3.36.186. 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 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: Y3.36.188. 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: Y3.37. Decision Process / Section 9.1 [RFC4271]
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 Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: Y Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y3.38. Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference / Section 9.1.1 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.38.192. Eligible Degree of Preference
Functionality/Description: Used as the LOCAL_PREF value in any IBGP re-advertisement 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 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.39.194. 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: Y3.39.195. 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: Y3.39.197. Immediate Next-Hop Address
Functionality/Description: Used for packet forwarding 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: Y3.39.198. 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: Y3.40. Route Resolvability Condition / Section 9.1.2.1 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.40.201. Multiple Matching Routes
Functionality/Description: Only the longest matching route SHOULD be considered 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: Y3.41. Breaking Ties (Phase 2) / Section 9.1.2.2 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.41.204. Algorithm Used
Functionality/Description: BGP implementations MAY use any algorithm which produces the same results as those 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
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: Y3.41.206. 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: Y3.41.207. 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 [RFC4271]
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 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: Y3.42.209. 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: Y3.42.210. 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 [RFC4271]
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 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y3.43.212. 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: Y3.43.213. 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 aggregate 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: Y3.43.215. De-Aggregation
Functionality/Description: Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated 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: Y3.43.216. 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 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.44.218. 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: Y3.44.219. 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: Y3.44.221. 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: Y3.44.222. 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 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y3.44.223. 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 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.45.225. 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
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: Y3.46. Aggregating Routing Information / Section 9.2.2.2 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.46.229. 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 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: Y3.46.231. 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: Y3.46.232. 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
3.46.233. Routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes
Functionality/Description: The aggregated AS_PATH attribute 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: Y3.46.234. 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: Y3.46.235. 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 Alcatel Y/N/O/Comments: Y Cisco Y/N/O/Comments: N Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y3.46.237. 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: Y3.46.238. 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: Y3.46.240. ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
Functionality/Description: The aggregated route SHALL have this 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: Y3.46.241. 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: Y3.47. Route Selection Criteria / Section 9.3 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.47.244. 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 [RFC4271]
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: Y3.48.246. 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: Y3.49. BGP Timers / Section 10 [RFC4271]
3.49.247. Optional Timers
Functionality/Description: Two optional timers MAY be supported: DelayOpenTimer, IdleHoldTimer by BGP 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: Y3.49.249. 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: Y3.49.250. 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
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 apply same only for connectretry. Laurel Y/N/O/Comments: Y NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: Y3.49.252. 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: Y3.49.253. 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 NextHop Y/N/O/Comments: N3.50. TCP Options that May Be Used with BGP / Appendix E [RFC4271]
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. Differentiated Services Code Point (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 [RFC4271]
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: N3.52. Complex AS_PATH aggregation / Appendix F.6 [RFC4271]
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: N3.53. Security Considerations [RFC4271]
3.53.259. Authentication Mechanism
Functionality/Description: A BGP implementation MUST support the authentication mechanism specified in RFC 2385 [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. Current deployed versions are 5.x and 6.0.x. Version 6.1 and beyond are tested against the latest BGP specification [RFC4271]. 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) 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? YES4.3. 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
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.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not address any security issues.
6. Normative References
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, Eds., "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-
4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2385] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.
[RFC2796] Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000. [RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918, September 2000. [RFC3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.7. Acknowledgements
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 EMail: hhshah@cisco.com, ruchi@cisco.com Laurel responses provided by: Contact Name: Manish Vora Contact EMail: vora@laurelnetworks.com NextHop responses provided by: Contact Name: Susan Hares Contact EMail: skh@nexthop.com Additional Help: Matt Richardson, Shane Wright.Authors' Addresses
Susan Hares NextHop Technologies 825 Victors Way, Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 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 EMail: aretana@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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. 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. Intellectual Property 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. 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).