[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                          A. Lindem
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                             May 6, 2015
Expires: November 7, 2015


      OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes Extension Implementation Report
              draft-acee-ospf-prefix-link-attr-impl-01.txt

Abstract

   This document reports the results of the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link
   Attributes implementation survey.  The survey has seven questions
   related to the implementer's support of OSPFv2 Prefix/Link
   Attributes.  After a brief summary of the results, each response is
   listed.  This document contains responses from six implementers who
   completed the survey.  No external means were used to verify the
   accuracy of the information submitted by the respondents.  The
   respondents are considered experts on the products they reported on.
   Additionally, responses were omitted from implementers who indicated
   that they have not implemented the function yet.

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 November 7, 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



Lindem                  Expires November 7, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report              May 2015


   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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Summary Results of Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Implementation Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Alcatel-Lucent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Huawei  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   This document reports the results of the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link
   Attributes [PREFIX-LINK-ATTR] implementation survey.  The survey has
   seven questions related to the implementer's support of OSPFv2
   Prefix/Link Attributes.  The OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes are
   extensions to the base OSPFv2 protocol [OSPFV2] to allow additional
   information to be associated with an OSPFv2 link or attribute.  After
   a brief summary of the results, each response is listed.  This
   document contains responses from three implementers who completed the
   survey.  No external means were used to verify the accuracy of the
   information submitted by the respondents.  The respondents are
   considered experts on the products they reported on.  Additionally,



Lindem                  Expires November 7, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report              May 2015


   responses were omitted from implementers who indicated that they have
   not implemented the function yet.

1.1.  Requirements notation

   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-KEYWORDS].

2.  Summary Results of Survey

   Three vendors replied to the survey.  These include Alcatel-Lucent,
   Cisco, and Huawei.  Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent also did
   interoperability testing.  The Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent
   implementations are in released software versions and the Huawei
   implementation release is pending.  For prefix attributes, the recent
   change incorporating the A-Flag is pending implementation by Alcatel-
   Lucent and Huawei.  Implementation of the N-flag is pending Huawei
   implementation.  Otherwise, the vendors have full implementations of
   [PREFIX-LINK-ATTR].  For all three vendors, segment routing
   [SEGMENT-ROUTING] was an application making use of the extensions.
   Additionally, Cisco has implemented Topology-Independent Loop-Free
   Alternatives (TI-LFA) [TI-LFA] and Bit Indexed Egress Replication
   (BIER) advertisement [BIER].

3.  Implementation Survey Results

3.1.  Alcatel-Lucent

   The Alcatel-Lucent responses to the survey questions are as follows:


   1.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
       Yes

   2.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and
       OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV?  Yes

   3.  If yes for #3, have you implemented the A and N flags which have
       been moved from the segment routing extensions?  Yes for N-flag,
       A-flag not yet.

   4.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Link opaque LSA and
       OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV?  Yes

   5.  In your implementation, what applications utilize the OSPFv2
       Extended Prefix/Link attributes (e.g., segment routing)?  Segment
       Routing



Lindem                  Expires November 7, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report              May 2015


   6.  Is the function in a generally available software release?  Yes -
       Product Name: SR OS, Release: 13.0.R4

   7.  Have you tested interoperability with any other vendors?  If yes,
       with whom?  Yes. With Cisco.

   8.  Would you be amenable to your data being included in an
       implementation survey document (complete with vendor
       identification)?  Yes

3.2.  Cisco

   The Cisco responses to the survey questions are as follows:


   1.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
       Yes

   2.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and
       OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV?  Yes

   3.  If yes for #3, have you implemented the A and N flags which have
       been moved from the segment routing extensions?  Yes

   4.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Link opaque LSA and
       OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV?  Yes

   5.  In your implementation, what applications utilize the OSPFv2
       Extended Prefix/Link attributes (e.g., segment routing)?  Segment
       Routing, Topology-Independent Loop-Free-Alternatives (TI-LFA),
       and OSPF Bit Index Egress Replication (BIER) extensions

   6.  Is the function in a generally available software release?
       Segment Routing and TI-LFA are available in IOS-SR 5.3.2.  OSPF
       BIER Extensions are not available yet.

   7.  Have you tested interoperability with any other vendors?  If yes,
       with whom?  Yes. With Alcatel-Lucent.

   8.  Would you be amenable to your data being included in an
       implementation survey document (complete with vendor
       identification)?  Yes

3.3.  Huawei

   The Huawei responses to the survey questions are as follows:





Lindem                  Expires November 7, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report              May 2015


   1.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
       Yes

   2.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and
       OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV?  Yes

   3.  If yes for #3, have you implemented the A and N flags which have
       been moved from the segment routing extensions?  Not yet.

   4.  Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Link opaque LSA and
       OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV?  Yes

   5.  In your implementation, what applications utilize the OSPFv2
       Extended Prefix/Link attributes (e.g., segment routing)?  Segment
       Routing

   6.  Is the function in a generally available software release?  Not
       yet.  It will be in Huawei Versatile Routing Platform (VRP)

   7.  Have you tested interoperability with any other vendors?  No

   8.  Would you be amenable to your data being included in an
       implementation survey document (complete with vendor
       identification)?  Yes

4.  Security Considerations

   This document reports the results of an OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes
   implementation survey.  As such, it does not introduce any security
   risks.

5.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are required.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [OSPFV2]   Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [PREFIX-LINK-ATTR]
              Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
              Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
              Advertisement", draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-04.txt (work
              in progress), April 2015.





Lindem                  Expires November 7, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        OSPF Prefix/Link Impl Report              May 2015


   [RFC-KEYWORDS]
              Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

6.2.  Informative References

   [BIER]     Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, I., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions
              for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00.txt
              (work in progress), April 2015.

   [SEGMENT-ROUTING]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
              routing-extensions-04.txt (work in progress), February
              2015.

   [TI-LFA]   Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
              and S. Litkowski, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using
              Segment Routing", draft-francois-spring-segment-routing-
              ti-lfa-01.txt (work in progress), October 2014.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.

   Thanks to Wim Henderickx, Greg Harkins, Peter Psenak, and Eric Wu for
   their responses to the survey.

Author's Address

   Acee Lindem
   Cisco Systems
   301 Midenhall Way
   Cary, NC  27513
   USA

   Email: acee@cisco.com












Lindem                  Expires November 7, 2015                [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/