idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits61382/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 19. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 914. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 2 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 3 IPR Disclosure Invitation. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 133 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 9 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3036], [RFC3031]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == There are 22 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 2005) is 6055 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '10' on line 356 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '11' on line 362 == Unused Reference: 'RFC3037' is defined on line 311, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3036 (Obsoleted by RFC 5036) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3037 Summary: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Bob Thomas 3 Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Expiration Date: April 2006 5 Loa Andersson 6 Acreo AB 8 October 2005 10 LDP Implementation Survey Results 12 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 17 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 18 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 19 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 24 Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 Abstract 39 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a method for forwarding 40 packets that uses short, fixed-length values carried by packets, 41 called labels, to determine packet nexthops [RFC3031]). A 42 fundamental concept in MPLS is that two Label Switching Routers 43 (LSRs) must agree on the meaning of the labels used to forward 44 traffic between and through them. This common understanding is 45 achieved by using a set of procedures, called a label distribution 46 protocol, by which one LSR informs another of label bindings it has 47 made. One such protocol called LDP [RFC3036] is used by LSRs to 48 distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding along normally routed 49 paths. This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations 50 conducted in August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from 51 proposed to draft standard. 53 Table of Contents 55 1 Introduction ....................................... 3 56 1.1 The LDP Survey Form ................................ 3 57 1.2 LDP Survey Highlights .............................. 4 58 2 Survey Results for LDP Features .................... 5 59 3 References ......................................... 8 60 4 Author Information ................................. 8 61 Appendix A Full LDP Survey Results ............................ 9 62 Appendix B LDP Implementation Survey Form ..................... 14 63 Full Copyright Notice .............................. 22 65 1. Introduction 67 This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations conducted in 68 August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from proposed to 69 draft standard. 71 This section highlights some of the survey results. Section 2 72 presents the survey results for LDP features, and Appendix A presents 73 the survey results in full. Appendix B contains a copy of the survey 74 form. 76 1.1. The LDP Survey Form 78 The LDP implementation survey requested the following information 79 about LDP implementation: 81 - Responding organization. Provisions were made to accommondate 82 organizations that wished to respond anonymously. 84 - The status, availability and origin of the LDP implementation. 86 - The LDP features implemented and for each whether it was tested 87 against an independent implementation. The survey form listed each 88 LDP feature defined by RFC3036 and requested one of the following 89 as the status of the feature: 91 t: Tested against another independent implementation; 92 y: Implemented but not tested against independent 93 implementation; 94 n: Not implemented; 95 x: Not applicable to this type of implementation; 97 In addition for the 'n' status the responder could optionally 98 provide the following additional information: 100 s: RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing; 101 u: Utility of feature unclear; 102 r: Feature not required for feature set implemented; 104 This document uses the following conventions for reporting survey 105 results for a feature: 107 At By Cn indicates: 109 - A responders implemented the feature and tested it against 110 another independent implementation (t); 111 - B responders implemented the feature but have not tested it 112 against an independent implmented (y); 113 - C responders did not implement the the feature (n); 115 (Ds Eu Fr) indicates optional responses: 117 - D responders thought the RFC3036 specification of the feature 118 inadequate, unclear, or confusing (s). 119 - E responders thought the utility of the feature unclear (u). 120 - F responders considered the feature not required for the feature 121 set implemented (combines x and r). 123 1.2. LDP Survey Highlights 125 This section presents some highlights from the implementatation 126 survey. 128 - There were 12 responses to the survey, 2 of which were anonymous. 129 At the time of the survey 10 of the implementation were available 130 as products and 2 were in beta test. Eleven of the 131 implementations were available for sale; the remaining 132 implementation had been done by a company no longer in business. 134 - Seven implementations were independently written from the RFC3036 135 specification. Four implementations combined purchased or free 136 code with code written by the responder. 138 One of the implementations was fully purchased code ported to the 139 vendor's platform. 141 - Every LDP feature in the survey questionnaire was implemented by 142 at least 2 respondents. 144 - Each of the 8 LDP Label Distribution Modes implemented and 145 tested; 147 8t 2y 2n DU, Ord Cntl, Lib Reten 148 7t 1y 4n DU, Ind Cntl, Lib Reten 149 7t 1y 4n DoD Ord Cntl, Cons Reten 150 6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind Cntl, Cons Reten 151 6t 1y 5n DU, Ord Cntl, Cons Reten 152 6t 0y 6n DU, Ind Cntl, Cons Reten 153 4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord Cntl, Lib Reten 154 4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind,Cntl, Lib Reten 156 - Platform and Interface Label Spaces were both widely supported. 158 12t 0y 0n Per Platform 159 7t 1y 4n Per Interface 161 - LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported. 163 12t 0y 0n Basic/Directly Connected 164 11t 1y 0n Targeted 166 - The TCP MD5 Option for LDP session TCP connections was not widely 167 implemented. 169 3t 1y 8n 171 2. Survey Results for LDP Features 173 This section presents the survey results for LDP features using the 174 notational convention described in Section 1.2. It omits the 175 optional status responses (s, u, r); complete results may be found in 176 Appendix A. 178 Feature 179 Survey Result 181 Interface types 182 12t 0y 0n Packet 183 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay 184 6t 2y 4n ATM 185 Label Spaces 186 12t 0y 0n Per platform 187 7t 1y 4n Per interface 188 LDP Discovery 189 12t 0y 0n Basic 190 11t 1y 0n Targeted 191 LDP Sessions 192 12t 0y 0n Directly Connected 193 11t 1y 0n Targeted 194 LDP Modes 195 7t 1y 4n DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten 196 8t 2y 2n DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten 197 6t 0y 6n DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten 198 6t 1y 5n DU, Ord cntl Cons reten 199 4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten 200 4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten 201 6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten 202 7t 1y 4n DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten 204 Loop Detection 205 9t 2y 1n 206 TCP MD5 Option 207 3t 1y 8n 208 LDP TLVs 209 7t 4y 0n U-bit 210 7t 4y 0n F-bit 211 12t 0y 0n FEC TLV 212 6t 5y 1n Wildcard 213 12t 0y 0n Prefix 214 10t 0y 2n Host 215 12t 0y 0n Address List TLV 216 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 217 9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV 218 12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV 219 6t 2y 4n ATM Label TLV 220 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay Label TLV 221 12t 0y 0n Status TLV 222 9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV 223 6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV 224 6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV 225 12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV 226 12t 0y 0n T-bit 227 11t 0y 1n R-bit 228 11t 1y 0n Hold Time 229 12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV 230 7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV 231 1t 1y 1n IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 232 12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV 233 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time 234 11t 0y 1n PVLim 235 11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length 236 6t 2y 2n ATM Session Param TLV 237 M values 238 5t 3y 4n 0 No Merge 239 3t 3y 6n 1 VP Merge 240 5t 3y 4n 2 VC Merge 241 3t 3y 6n 3 VP & VC Merge 242 6t 2y 4n D-bit 243 6t 2y 4n ATM Label Range Component 244 2t 3y 7n FR Session Param TLV 245 M values 246 2t 3y 7n 0 No Merge 247 2t 3y 7n 1 Merge 248 2t 3y 7n D-bit 249 2t 3y 7n FR Label Range Component 250 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV 251 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private TLV 252 1t 5y 6n Experimental TLV 253 LDP Messages 254 12t 0y 0n Notification Msg 255 12t 0y 0n Hello Msg 256 12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg 257 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg 258 12t 0y 0n Address Msg 259 12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg 260 12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg 261 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg Id TLV 262 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 263 10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV 264 9t 0y 3n Label Request Msg 265 9t 0y 3n Hop Count TLV 266 9t 0y 3n Path Vect TLV 267 12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg 268 12t 0y 0n Label TLV 269 11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg 270 10t 1y 1n Label TLV 271 9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg 272 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private Msg 273 1t 5y 6n Experimental Msg 274 LDP Status Codes 275 9t 3y 0n Success 276 8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id 277 7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version 278 7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length 279 7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type 280 7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length 281 7t 4y 0n Unknown TLV 282 7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length 283 7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value 284 11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired 285 11t 1y 0n Shutdown 286 10t 1y 1n Loop Detected 287 7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC 288 11t 1y 0n No Route 289 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 290 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable 291 Session Rejected 292 7t 5y 0n No Hello 293 9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode 294 9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len 295 8t 3y 1n Param Label Range 296 7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time 297 11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired 298 9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted 299 6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params 300 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 301 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 303 3. References 305 [RFC3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label 306 Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001. 308 [RFC3036] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, B. 309 Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC3036, January 2001. 311 [RFC3037] B. Thomas, E. Gray, "LDP Applicability", RFC3037, January 312 2001. 314 4. Author Information 316 Bob Thomas 317 Cisco Systems, Inc. 318 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 319 Boxborough MA 01719 321 Loa Andersson 322 Acreo AB 323 Isafjordsgatan 22 324 Kista, Sweden 326 Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results 328 LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0] 330 ======================================================================= 331 A. General information. 333 Responders: 335 Anonymous: 2 336 Public: 10 338 Agilent Technologies 339 Celox Networks, Inc. 340 Cisco Systems, Inc. 341 Data Connection Ltd. 342 NetPlane Systems, Inc 343 Trillium, An Intel Company 344 Redback Networks 345 Riverstone Networks 346 Vivace Networks, Inc. 347 Wipro Technologies 349 ======================================================================= 350 B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin 352 Status: 353 [ ] Development 354 [ ] Alpha 355 [ 2] Beta 356 [10] Product 357 [ ] Other (describe): 359 Availability 360 [ ] Public and free 361 [ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free 362 [11] On sale. 363 [ ] For internal company use only 364 [ 1] Other: 365 Implementation based on: (check all that apply) 366 [ 1] Purchased code 367 (please list source if possible) 368 [ ] Free code 369 (please list source if possible) 370 [ 7] Internal implementation 371 (no outside code, just from specs) 372 [ 4] Internal implementation on top of purchased 373 or free code 375 ======================================================================= 376 C. LDP Feature Survey. 378 For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the 379 implementation using one of the following: 381 't' tested against another independent implementation 382 'y' implemented but not tested against independent 383 implementation 384 'n' not implemented 385 'x' not applicable to this type of implementation 387 Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing 388 using one of the following: 390 's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing 391 'u' utility of feature unclear 392 'r' feature not required for feature set implemented 394 Feature RFC3036 Section(s) 395 Survey Result 397 Interface types 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2 398 12t 0y 0n Packet 399 2t 3y 7n(3r 1x) Frame Relay 400 6t 2y 4n(3r) ATM 401 Label Spaces 2.2.1, 2.2.2 402 12t 0y 0n Per platform 403 7t 1y 4n(4r) Per interface 404 LDP Discovery 2.4 405 12t 0y 0n Basic 2.4.1 406 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.4.2 407 LDP Sessions 2.2.3 408 12t 0y 0n Directly Connected -- 409 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.3 410 LDP Modes 2.6 411 7t 1y 4n(2u 1r) DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6 412 8t 2y 2n(1r) DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6 413 6t 0y 6n(2u 2r) DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6 414 6t 1y 5n(1u 2r) DU, Ord cntl Cons reten 2.6 415 4t 2y 6n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6 416 4t 3y 5n(2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6 417 6t 1y 5n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6 418 7t 1y 4n(1u 2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten 2.6 419 Loop Detection 2.8 420 9t 2y 1n 421 TCP MD5 Option 2.9 422 3t 1y 8n(1u 1r 1x) 424 LDP TLVs 3.3, 3.4, throughout 425 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) U-bit 3.3 426 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) F-bit 3.3 427 FEC TLV 1, 2.1, 3.4.1 428 6t 5y 1n(1r) Wildcard 3.4.1 429 12t 0y 0n Prefix 3.4.1 430 10t 0y 2n(s1 1u 1r) Host 2.1, 3.4.1 431 12t 0y 0n Address List TLV 3.4.3 432 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.4.4 433 9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV 3.4.5 434 12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV 3.4.2.1 435 6t 2y 4n(2r) ATM Label TLV 3.4.2.2 436 2t 3y 7n(1u 2r 1x) Frame Relay Label TLV 3.4.2.3 437 12t 0y 0n Status TLV 3.4.6 438 9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV 3.5.1 439 6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV 3.5.1 440 6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV 3.5.1 441 12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV 3.5.2 442 12t 0y 0n T-bit 3.5.2 443 11t 0y 1n R-bit 3.5.2 444 11t 1y 0n Hold Time 3.5.2 445 12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2 446 7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV 3.5.2 447 1t 1y 1n(1u 4r 1x) IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2 448 12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV 3.5.3 449 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time 3.5.3 450 11t 0y 1n PVLim 3.5.3 451 11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length 3.5.3 452 6t 2y 2n(1r 1x) ATM Session Param TLV 3.5.3 453 M values 454 5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3 455 3t 3y 6n(s 1 1r 1x) 1 VP Merge 3.5.3 456 5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 2 VC Merge 3.5.3 457 3t 3y 6n(s1 1r 1x) 3 VP & VC Merge 3.5.3 458 6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) D-bit 3.5.3 459 6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) ATM Label Range 3.5.3 460 Component 461 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Session Param TLV 3.5.3 462 M values 463 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3 464 2t 3y 7n 1 Merge 3.5.3 465 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) D-bit 3.5.3 466 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Label Range 3.5.3 467 Component 468 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV 3.5.7 469 2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private TLV 3.6.1.1 470 1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental TLV 3.6.2 472 LDP Messages 3.5, throughout 473 12t 0y 0n Notification Msg 3.5.1 474 12t 0y 0n Hello Msg 3.5.2 475 12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg 3.5.3 476 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg 3.5.4 477 12t 0y 0n Address Msg 3.5.5 478 12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg 3.5.6 479 12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg 3.5.7 480 10t 0y 2n(1r) Label Request Msg Id TLV 3.5.7 481 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.5.7 482 10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV 3.5.7 483 9t 0y 3n(1x) Label Request Msg 3.5.8 484 9t 0y 3n(1x) Hop Count TLV 3.5.8 485 9t 0y 3n(1x) Path Vect TLV 3.5.8 486 12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg 3.5.10 487 12t 0y 0n Label TLV 3.5.10 488 11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg 3.5.11 489 10t 1y 1n Label TLV 3.5.11 490 9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg 3.5.9 491 2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private Msg 3.6.1.2 492 1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental Msg 3.6.2 493 LDP Status Codes 3.4.6 494 9t 3y 0n Success 3.4.6, 3.9 495 8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id 3.5.1.2.1 496 7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version 3.5.1.2.1 497 7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length 3.5.1.2.1 498 7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type 3.5.1.2.1 499 7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length 3.5.1.2.1 500 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) Unknown TLV 3.5.1.2.2 501 7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length 3.5.1.2.2 502 7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value 3.5.1.2.2 503 11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired 3.5.1.2.3 504 11t 1y 0n Shutdown 3.5.1.2.4 505 10t 1y 1n Loop Detected 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 506 7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC 3.4.1.1 507 11t 1y 0n No Route 3.5.8.1 508 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 3.5.8.1 509 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable 3.5.8.1 510 Session Rejected 2.5.3, 3.5.3 511 7t 5y 0n No Hello 2.5.3, 3.5.3 512 9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode 2.5.3, 3.5.3 513 9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len 2.5.3, 3.5.3 514 8t 3y 1n Param Label Range 2.5.3, 3.5.3 515 7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 516 11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 517 9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted 3.5.9.1 518 6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params 3.5.1.2.1 519 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 520 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 3.5.1.2.7 522 Appendix B. LDP Implementation Survey Form 524 LDP Implementation Survey Form [V 1.0] 526 The purpose of this form is to gather information about 527 implementations of LDP as defined by RFC3036. The information is 528 being requested as part of the process of advancing LDP from Proposed 529 to Draft Standard. 531 The form is patterned after the implementation report form used for 532 HTTP/1.1; see: 534 http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/http1.1-implementations.txt 536 ======================================================================= 537 A. General information. 539 Please provide the following information. 540 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 542 Organization: 544 Organization url(s): 546 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 548 Product title(s): 550 Brief description(s): 552 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 554 Contact for LDP information 555 Name: 556 Title: 557 E-mail: 558 Organization/department: 559 Postal address: 560 Phone: 561 Fax: 563 ======================================================================= 564 B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin 566 Please check [x] the boxes that apply. 567 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 568 Status: 569 [ ] Development 570 [ ] Alpha 571 [ ] Beta 572 [ ] Product 573 [ ] Other (describe): 575 Availability 576 [ ] Public and free 577 [ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free 578 [ ] On sale. 579 [ ] For internal company use only 580 [ ] Other: 582 Implementation based on: (check all that apply) 583 [ ] Purchased code 584 (please list source if possible) 585 [ ] Free code 586 (please list source if possible) 587 [ ] Internal implementation 588 (no outside code, just from specs) 589 [ ] Internal implementation on top of purchased 590 or free code 591 List portions from external source: 592 List portions developed internally: 594 ======================================================================= 595 C. LDP Feature Survey. 597 For each features listed, please indicate the Status of the implementation 598 using one of the following: 600 't' tested against another independent implementation 601 'y' implemented but not tested against independent implementation 602 'n' not implemented 603 '-' not applicable to this type of implementation 605 Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing using 606 one of the following: 608 's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing 609 'u' utility of feature unclear 610 'r' feature not required for feature set implemented 612 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 613 | | Status 614 | | (one of t, y, n, -; if n, 615 Feature | RFC3036 Section(s) | optionally one of s, u, r) 616 ==================+=============================+========================= 617 Interface types | 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3,4,2 618 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 619 Packet | | 620 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 621 Frame Relay | | 622 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 623 ATM | | 624 ==================+=============================+========================= 625 Label Spaces | 2.2.1, 2.2.2 626 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 627 Per platform | | 628 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 629 Per interface | | 630 ==================+=============================+========================= 631 LDP Discovery | 2.4 632 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 633 Basic | 2.4.1 | 634 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 635 Targeted | 2.4.2 | 636 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 637 LDP Sessions | 2.2.3 638 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 639 Directly | -- | 640 Connected | | 641 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 642 Targeted | 2.3 | 643 ==================+=============================+========================= 644 LDP Modes | 2.6 645 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 646 DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 647 Lib retention | | 648 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 649 DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 650 Lib retention | | 651 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 652 DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 653 Cons retention | | 654 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 655 DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 656 Cons retention | | 657 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 658 DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 659 Lib retention | | 660 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 661 DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 662 Lib retention | | 663 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 664 DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 | 665 Cons retention | | 666 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 667 DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 | 668 Cons retention | | 669 ==================+=============================+========================= 670 Loop Detection | 2.8 | 671 ==================+=============================+========================= 672 TCP MD5 Option | 2.9 | 673 ==================+=============================+========================= 674 LDP TLVs | 3.3, 3.4, throughout 675 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 676 U-bit | 3.3 | 677 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 678 F-bit | 3.3 | 679 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 680 FEC | 1., 2.1, 3.4.1 | 681 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 682 Wildcard | 3.4.1 | 683 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 684 Prefix | 2.1, 3.4.1 | 685 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 686 Host | 2.1, 3.4.1 | 687 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 688 Address List | 3.4.3 | 689 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 690 Hop Count | 3.4.4 | 691 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 692 Path Vector | 3.4.5 | 693 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 694 Generic Label | 3.4.2.1 | 695 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 696 ATM Label | 3.4.2.2 | 697 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 698 Frame Relay | 3.4.2.3 | 699 Label | | 700 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 701 Status | 3.4.6 | 702 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 703 Extended Status | 3.5.1 | 704 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 705 Returned PDU | 3.5.1 | 706 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 707 Returned Message| 3.5.1 | 709 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 710 Common Hello | 3.5.2 | 711 Parameters | | 712 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 713 T-bit | 3.5.2 | 714 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 715 R-bit | 3.5.2 | 716 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 717 Hold Time | 3.5.2 | 718 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 719 IPv4 Transport | 3.5.2 | 720 Address | | 721 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 722 Configuration | 3.5.2 | 723 Sequence Number | | 724 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 725 IPv6 Transport | 3.5.2 | 726 Address | | 727 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 728 Common Session | 3.5.3 | 729 Parameters | | 730 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 731 KeepAlive Time| 3.5.3 | 732 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 733 PVLim | 3.5.3 | 734 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 735 Max PDU Length| 3.5.3 | 736 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 737 ATM Session | 3.5.3 | 738 Parameters | | 739 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 740 M values | | 741 0 No Merge | 3.5.3 | 742 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 743 1 VP Merge | 3.5.3 | 744 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 745 2 VC Merge | 3.5.3 | 746 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 747 3 VP & | 3.5.3 | 748 VC Merge | | 749 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 750 D-bit | 3.5.3 | 751 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 752 ATM Label | 3.5.3 | 753 Range | | 754 Component | | 755 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 756 Frame Relay | 3.5.3 | 757 Session | | 758 Parameters | | 759 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 760 M values | | 761 0 No Merge | 3.5.3 | 762 ------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 763 1 Merge | 3.5.3 | 764 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 765 D-bit | 3.5.3 | 766 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 767 Frame Relay | 3.5.3 | 768 Label Range | | 769 Component | | 770 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 771 Label Request | 3.5.7 | 772 Message ID | | 773 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 774 Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.1 | 775 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 776 Experimental | 3.6.2 | 777 ==================+=============================+========================= 778 LDP Messages | 3.5, throughout 779 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 780 Notification | 3.5.1 | 781 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 782 Hello | 3.5.2 | 783 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 784 Initialization | 3.5.3 | 785 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 786 KeepAlive | 3.5.4 | 787 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 788 Address | 3.5.5 | 789 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 790 Address Withdraw| 3.5.6 | 791 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 792 Label Mapping | 3.5.7 | 793 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 794 Label Request | 3.5.7 | 795 Message ID TLV| | 796 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 797 Hop Count TLV | 3.5.7 | 798 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 799 Path Vect TLV | 3.5.7 | 800 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 801 Label Request | 3.5.8 | 802 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 803 Hop Count TLV | 3.5.8 | 804 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 805 Path Vect TLV | 3.5.8 | 806 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 807 Label Withdraw | 3.5.10 | 808 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 809 Label TLV | 3.5.10 | 810 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 811 Label Release | 3.5.11 | 812 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 813 Label TLV | 3.5.11 | 814 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 815 Label Abort Req | 3.5.9 | 816 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 817 Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.2 | 818 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 819 Experimental | 3.6.2 | 820 ==================+=============================+========================= 821 LDP Status Codes | 3.4.6 822 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 823 Success | 3.4.6, 3.9 | 824 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 825 Bad LDP Id | 3.5.1.2.1 | 826 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 827 Bad Ptcl Version| 3.5.1.2.1 | 828 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 829 Bad PDU Length | 3.5.1.2.1 | 830 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 831 Unknown Message | 3.5.1.2.1 | 832 Type | | 833 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 834 Bad Message | 3.5.1.2.1 | 835 Length | | 836 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 837 Unknown TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 | 838 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 839 Bad TLV length | 3.5.1.2.2 | 840 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 841 Malformed TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 | 842 Value | | 843 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 844 Hold Timer | 3.5.1.2.3 | 845 Expired | | 846 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 847 Shutdown | 3.5.1.2.4 | 848 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 849 Loop Detected | 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 | 850 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 851 Unknown FEC | 3.4.1.1 | 852 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 853 No Route | 3.5.8.1 | 854 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 855 No Label | 3.5.8.1 | 856 Resources | | 857 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 858 Label Resources | 3.5.8.1 | 859 Available | | 860 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 861 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 862 No Hello | | 863 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 864 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 865 Parameters | | 866 Advert Mode | | 867 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 868 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 869 Parameters | | 870 Max PDU Length | | 871 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 872 Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | 873 Parameters | | 874 Label Range | | 875 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 876 KeepAlive Timer | 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 | 877 Expired | | 878 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 879 Label Request | 3.5.9.1 | 880 Aborted | | 881 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 882 Missing Message | 3.5.1.2.1 | 883 Parameters | | 884 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 885 Unsupported | 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 | 886 Address Family | | 887 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 888 Session Rejected| 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 | 889 Bad KeepAlive | | 890 Time | | 891 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 892 Internal Error | 3.5.1.2.7 | 893 ==================+=============================+========================= 895 Full Copyright Statement 897 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 898 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 899 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 901 Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents 902 except in the case where such document is the product of a joint 903 development effort between the IETF and another standards development 904 organization or the document is a republication of the work of 905 another standards organization. Such exceptions must be approved on 906 an individual basis by the IAB. 908 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 909 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 910 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 911 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 912 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 913 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 914 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.