Subject: [Idr] Call for implementation information on drafts past WG LC

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 08:48:20 -0500

Greetings for 2019:

The IDR chairs would like to start the new year by shipping IDR drafts past
WG LC to the IESG for publication.  We need your help with information on
implementations  on the following: 

.         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria  

.         draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-10.txt

.         draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10.txt 

.         draft-ietf-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-17.txt  

Here's the information we have about these drafts: 

.         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria (2 cisco
implementations)   

.         draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-10.txt  (no implementations) 

.         draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10.txt  (3 partial implementations) 

.         draft-ietf-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-17.txt  (3 full
implementations) 

 We have heard rumors of full implementations of the
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10.txt.  

Please send any information you have to the chairs regarding
implementations. 

Susan Hares

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 12:58:14 -0500

Sue,

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 08:48:20AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> ..         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria  

I will try to get you commentary on what level of conformance Juniper has
with this draft within the next two weeks.

> 
> ..         draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-10.txt

Juniper expects to have a release containing rtc-no-rt in a release targeted
for shipment early this year.

> ..         draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10.txt 
> 
> ..         draft-ietf-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-17.txt  

Juniper is one of the implementors of ORR.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 14:00:57 -0500

Jeff:

Thank you letting me know regarding the following implementations: 

<snip> 
 
>          draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria  (Juniper
implementation, report 2 weeks pending) 
>          draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-10.txt (in early 2019 release) 
>          draft-ietf-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-17.txt  (supported) 

-- Jeff

---

From: "Serpil Bayraktar (serpil)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 19:26:12 +0000

Cisco has an implementation of draft-ietf-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-17.txt  as well.

Serpil

From: Idr <[email-masked]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 11:01 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Call for implementation information on drafts past WG LC

Jeff:

<snip>

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:40:55 -0500

Sue,

> with this draft within the next two weeks.

Compliance statements for these types of documents are funny.  Both of the
additional conditions in the document are MAYs and thus everyone is
compliant. :-)

That said, Juniper implements the 3.1 check against whether a nexthop is
resolvable in a given data plane protocol; e.g. MPLS.  This may be adjusted
using configuration.  (Our "resolution ribs" feature.)

Juniper implements the 3.2 path availability check in several variations,
but not all.  For example, BFD may be used to protect MPLS generated
nexthops for LDP and RSVP.  For IP nexthops distributed via an IGP, the IGP
may be protected using BFD.

> > ..         draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10.txt 

It is also worth noting that Juniper has partial support for the
tunnel-encaps draft, particularly in support of specific SR-TE applications.
We are not fully compliant.

> [email-masked]