Subject: Document Action: Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS) to BCP
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 14:59:55 -0500

The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft "Guidelines for creation,
  selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)"
  <draft-ietf-idr-autosys-guide-04.txt> for publication as a Best Current
  Practices RFC. This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing
  Working Group. The IESG contact person is Joel Halpern.

Technical Summary

 This document clarifies the definition of an Autonomous System.  It
 then provides clear guidelines for when AS numbers should be assigned,
 and explanations for when they are NOT needed.  This is intended to
 help control the unnecessary assignment of AS numbers, while clearly
 providing for the assignemnet of numbers when necessary.

Working Group Summary

 There was strong support in the working group for this document.

Protocol Quality

 This document was reviewed by Joel M. Halpern, the Routing Area
 Director for the IESG.  While there are no "implementations", the
 document does reflect the practices that many services providers are
 either using or endevouring to put into place.

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 17:08:30 EST
From: [email-masked] (Paul Knight)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Source for expired bgp docs?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Anyone know a source for:

- BGP Communities

draft-chandra-bgp-communities-00.txt

- BGP Confederations

draft-traina-bgp-confed-00.txt  ???

They are no longer on ds.internic.net (aged out...)

Thanks,
Paul

To: [email-masked]
Subject: IDR WG agenda
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:38:42 -0800
From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Folks,

Here is the list of things I'd like to put on our agenda for the WG meeting:

1. IDRP for IPv[46]

draft-ietf-idr-idrp-v4v6-02.txt

2. Destination Preference Attribute (DPA)

draft-ietf-idr-bgp-dpa-04.txt
draft-ietf-idr-dpa-application-02.txt
draft-ietf-idr-symm-multi-prov-02.txt

3. BGP-4 MIB 

draft-ietf-bgp-mibv4-06.txt

4. BGP Communities

draft-chandra-bgp-communities-00.txt

5.  BGP Confederations

draft-traina-bgp-confed-00.txt

Please send me any other items you'd like to put on the agenda.

Thanks.

Yakov.

To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: BGP-4 MIB
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:50:05 -0800
From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Folks,

In order to advance BGP-4 MIB to a Draft Standard the IESG asked the WG to provide
the following information:

     o were all tables & scalars implemented?
     o if a table was implemented, were all
       the objects implemented?
       - if object(s) weren't implemented, why?
     o were the R/W objects implemented
       with R/W access
     o were the traps implemented?
     o are there objects/traps that you would recommend
       be added to the mib module? Have you 
       implementation experience with these objects/traps?

For vendors that don't want to publicize their results, they can reply
privately back to me.  This information is then summarized and
presented back to the working group and the IESG. Please try to provide
the information asap. 

Many thanks in advance.

Yakov.

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:50:42 +0500
From: [email-masked] (Joel Halpern)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: DNS Document
Content-Length: 427
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Domain Name System Security Working Group has requested that
  Mapping Automous Systems Number into the Domain Name System
	 <draft-ietf-dnssec-as-map-03.txt>

Be advanced to proposed standard.
I would appreciate feedback from the BGP working group as to whether
this working group sees any difficulties with this document.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern				[email-masked]
Newbridge Networks Inc.			Routing Area Director

To: [email-masked]
Subject: BGP-4 MIB to Draft Standard
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 07:54:01 PST
From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Folks, 

In order to advance BGP-4 MIB to Draft Standar the IESG
asked the WG to supply the following information:

     o were all tables & scalars implemented?
     o if a table was implemented, were all
       the objects implemented?
       - if object(s) weren't implemented, why?
     o were the R/W objects implemented
       with R/W access
     o were the traps implemented?
     o are there objects/traps that you would recommend
       be added to the mib module? Have you 
       implementation experience with these objects/traps?

For vendors that don't want to publicize their results, they can reply
privately back to me.  I will summarize the information presented it
back to the working group and the IESG.

Please try to send the information asap.

Many thanks in advance.

Yakov.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: BGP-4 MIB information
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 96 10:24:47 PST
From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Folks, 

In order to advance BGP-4 MIB to a Draft Standard the IESG asked
Working Group to supply the following information:

      o were all tables & scalars implemented?
      o if a table was implemented, were all
        the objects implemented?
        - if object(s) weren't implemented, why?
      o were the R/W objects implemented
        with R/W access
      o were the traps implemented?
      o are there objects/traps that you would recommend
        be added to the mib module? Have you 
        implementation experience with these objects/traps?

I would appreciate if implementors of BGP-4 MIB would drop
me a note with the answers to the above questions. The answers would
be summarized and presented to the IESG. The summary *will not* include
names of vendors.

Yakov.

To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Advancing  BGP/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745)
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 15:05:39 -0500
From: Susan Hares <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

John Moy surveyed those using OSPF to see features of the
protocol were implemented, Interoperated and Deployed.
As is reported in the the survey below, 

        6 vendors had implemented the BGP-OSPF Interaction
        3 vendors had interoperated
        3 vendors had product deployed with this feature.

Due to this, I suggest that the IDR working group vote
to advance the BGP/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745)
be advanced from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. 

I will hold a 3 week discussion period for an appropriate
"hum" on this proposal. 

Sue Hares

=========
John Moy's survey

From: [email-masked] (John Moy)
To:  [email-masked]
Cc:  [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:14:45 +0500
Subject:  Implementation survey results

Hi. Here are the results of the implementation survey that I sent out
a month ago. I received 12 responses in all (thanks very much to everyone
that did respond).

The way I've tabulated the results is as follows. For the features, I've
counted all the "yes" indications. For the scaling, I've calculated a
minimum/mean/average/maximum. Note that not everyone responded to all
the scaling questions (some responded to none of them, others to only
a subset). So I've also indicated in parenthesis how many people
responded to each scaling question.

Based on these results, it does seem that we need a little more
interoperability testing with the new features (Cryptographic
authentication and Point-to-MultiPoint). Also, it seems that if the
authors of the BGP/OSPF interaction document want to advance it, they
have enough interoperability and deployment experience to do so.

Thanks,
John

^L

                    OSPF Implementation Survey

    Vendor: ___________12______________________
    Independent Implementation? (y/n): ___6____

    Features: (all y/n)
                                 RFC#   Implemented? Interoperated? Deployed?
    OSPF areas:                  1583   __10__       __10__         __10__
        stub areas:              1583   __10__       __10__         ___9__
        NSSAs:                   1587   ___3__       ___0__         ___0__
    Virtual links:               1583   __10__       ___9__         ___7__
    Equal-cost multipath:        1583   __10__       ___7__         ___8__
    TOS routing:                 1583   ___2__       ___0__         ___1__
    NBMA support:                1583   ___9__       ___8__         ___7__
    VLSMs (CIDR prefixes):       1583   ___8__       ___5__         ___5__
    OSPF MIB:                    1850   ___8__       ___4__         ___3__

    OSPF Cryptographic auth.:    I-D    ___2__       ___0__         ___1__
    Point-to-Multipoint ifc.:    I-D    ___3__       ___1__         ___2__
  BGP-OSPF Interaction:        1745   ___6__       ___3__         ___3__
    OSPF database overflow:      1765   ___3__       ___0__         ___1__
    Demand circuit extensions:   1793   ___1__       ___0__         ___1__
    MOSPF:                       1584   ___3__       ___1__         ___3__
        inter-area multicast:    1584   ___3__       ___1__         ___3__
        inter-AS multicast:      1584   ___2__       ___0__         ___2__
        TOS-based multicast:     1584   ___0__       ___0__         ___0__

    Scaling: (reported as min/mean/avg/max) of responses

                                        Tested?         Deployed?
    Max routers in domain:      30/240/460/1600 (7)     20/350/510/1000 (8)
    Max routers in single area: 20/240/380/1600 (7)     20/100/160/350 (8)
    Max areas in domain:        1/10/16/60 (7)          1/15/23/60 (7)
    Max AS-external-LSAs:       50/10K/10K/30K (9)      50/1K/2K/5K (6)