summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5038.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5038.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc5038.txt1291
1 files changed, 1291 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5038.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5038.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2bb2339
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5038.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1291 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group B. Thomas
+Request for Comments: 5038 Cisco Systems, Inc.
+Category: Informational L. Andersson
+ Acreo AB
+ October 2007
+
+
+ The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Implementation Survey Results
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
+ not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
+ memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+ Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS), described in RFC 3031, is a
+ method for forwarding packets that uses short, fixed-length values
+ carried by packets, called labels, to determine packet next hops. A
+ fundamental concept in MPLS is that two Label Switching Routers
+ (LSRs) must agree on the meaning of the labels used to forward
+ traffic between and through them. This common understanding is
+ achieved by using a set of procedures, called a Label Distribution
+ Protocol (as described in RFC 3036) , by which one LSR informs
+ another of label bindings it has made. One such protocol, called
+ LDP, is used by LSRs to distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding
+ along normally routed paths. This document reports on a survey of
+ LDP implementations conducted in August 2002 as part of the process
+ of advancing LDP from Proposed to Draft Standard.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................2
+ 1.1. The LDP Survey Form ........................................2
+ 1.2. LDP Survey Highlights ......................................3
+ 2. Survey Results for LDP Features .................................4
+ 3. Security Considerations .........................................7
+ 4. References ......................................................7
+ Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results ................................8
+ Appendix B. LDP Implementation Survey Form ........................13
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a method for forwarding
+ packets that uses short fixed-length values carried by packets,
+ called labels, to determine packet next hops [RFC3031]. A
+ fundamental MPLS concept is that two Label Switching Routers (LSRs)
+ must agree on the meaning of the labels used to forward traffic
+ between and through them. This common understanding is achieved by
+ using a set of procedures by which one LSR informs another of label
+ bindings it has made.
+
+ Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) specifies a set of procedures LSRs
+ use to distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding along normally
+ routed paths. LDP was specified originally by [RFC3036]. The
+ current LDP specification is [RFC5036], which obsoletes [RFC3036].
+ [RFC3037] describes the applicability of LDP.
+
+ This document reports on a survey of LDP implementations conducted in
+ August 2002 as part of the process of advancing LDP from Proposed to
+ Draft standard.
+
+ This section highlights some of the survey results. Section 2
+ presents the survey results for LDP features, and Appendix A presents
+ the survey results in full. Appendix B contains a copy of the survey
+ form.
+
+1.1. The LDP Survey Form
+
+ The LDP implementation survey requested the following information
+ about LDP implementation:
+
+ - Responding organization. Provisions were made to accommodate
+ organizations that wished to respond anonymously.
+
+ - The status, availability, and origin of the LDP implementation.
+
+ - The LDP features implemented and for each whether it was tested
+ against an independent implementation. The survey form listed
+ each LDP feature defined by [RFC3036] and requested one of the
+ following as the status of the feature:
+
+ t: Tested against another independent implementation
+ y: Implemented but not tested against independent
+ implementation
+ n: Not implemented
+ x: Not applicable to this type of implementation
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ In addition, for the 'n' status, the responder could optionally
+ provide the following additional information:
+
+ s: RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
+ u: Utility of feature unclear
+ r: Feature not required for feature set implemented
+
+ This document uses the following conventions for reporting survey
+ results for a feature:
+
+ At By Cn indicates:
+
+ - A responders implemented the feature and tested it against
+ another independent implementation (t)
+ - B responders implemented the feature but have not tested it
+ against an independent implemented (y)
+ - C responders did not implement the feature (n)
+
+ (Ds Eu Fr) indicates optional responses:
+
+ - D responders thought the RFC 3036 specification of the feature
+ inadequate, unclear, or confusing (s).
+ - E responders thought the utility of the feature unclear (u).
+ - F responders considered the feature not required for the
+ feature set implemented (combines x and r).
+
+1.2. LDP Survey Highlights
+
+ This section presents some highlights from the implementation survey.
+
+ - There were 12 responses to the survey, 2 of which were
+ anonymous. At the time of the survey, 10 of the implementation
+ were available as products and 2 were in beta test. Eleven of
+ the implementations were available for sale; the remaining
+ implementation had been done by a company no longer in
+ business.
+
+ - Seven implementations were independently written from the RFC
+ 3036 specification. Four implementations combined purchased or
+ free code with code written by the responder.
+
+ One of the implementations was fully purchased code ported to
+ the vendor's platform.
+
+ - Every LDP feature in the survey questionnaire was implemented
+ by at least 2 respondents.
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ - Each of the 8 LDP Label Distribution Modes implemented and
+ tested:
+
+ 8t 2y 2n DU, Ord Cntl, Lib reten
+ 7t 1y 4n DU, Ind Cntl, Lib reten
+ 7t 1y 4n DoD Ord Cntl, Cons reten
+ 6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind Cntl, Cons reten
+ 6t 1y 5n DU, Ord Cntl, Cons reten
+ 6t 0y 6n DU, Ind Cntl, Cons reten
+ 4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord Cntl, Lib reten
+ 4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind Cntl, Lib reten
+
+ - Platform and Interface Label Spaces were both widely supported.
+
+ 12t 0y 0n Per platform
+ 7t 1y 4n Per interface
+
+ - LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported.
+
+ 12t 0y 0n Basic/Directly Connected
+ 11t 1y 0n Targeted
+
+ - The TCP MD5 Option for LDP session TCP connections was not
+ widely implemented.
+
+ 3t 1y 8n
+
+2. Survey Results for LDP Features
+
+ This section presents the survey results for LDP features using the
+ notational convention described in Section 1.2. It omits the
+ optional status responses (s, u, r); complete results may be found in
+ Appendix A.
+
+ Feature
+ Survey Result
+
+ Interface types
+ 12t 0y 0n Packet
+ 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay
+ 6t 2y 4n ATM
+ Label Spaces
+ 12t 0y 0n Per platform
+ 7t 1y 4n Per interface
+ LDP Discovery
+ 12t 0y 0n Basic
+ 11t 1y 0n Targeted
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ LDP Sessions
+ 12t 0y 0n Directly Connected
+ 11t 1y 0n Targeted
+ LDP Modes
+ 7t 1y 4n DU, Ind Cntl, Lib reten
+ 8t 2y 2n DU, Ord Cntl, Lib reten
+ 6t 0y 6n DU, Ind Cntl, Cons reten
+ 6t 1y 5n DU, Ord Cntl Cons reten
+ 4t 2y 6n DoD, Ind Cntl, Lib reten
+ 4t 3y 5n DoD, Ord Cntl, Lib reten
+ 6t 1y 5n DoD, Ind Cntl, Cons reten
+ 7t 1y 4n DoD, Ord Cntl, Cons reten
+ Loop Detection
+ 9t 2y 1n
+ TCP MD5 Option
+ 3t 1y 8n
+ LDP TLVs
+ 7t 4y 0n U-bit
+ 7t 4y 0n F-bit
+ 12t 0y 0n FEC TLV
+ 6t 5y 1n Wildcard
+ 12t 0y 0n Prefix
+ 10t 0y 2n Host
+ 12t 0y 0n Address List TLV
+ 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV
+ 9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV
+ 12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV
+ 6t 2y 4n ATM Label TLV
+ 2t 3y 7n Frame Relay Label TLV
+ 12t 0y 0n Status TLV
+ 9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV
+ 6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV
+ 6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV
+ 12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV
+ 12t 0y 0n T-bit
+ 11t 0y 1n R-bit
+ 11t 1y 0n Hold Time
+ 12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV
+ 7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV
+ 1t 1y 1n IPv6 Transport Addr TLV
+ 12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV
+ 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time
+ 11t 0y 1n PVLim
+ 11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length
+ 6t 2y 2n ATM Session Param TLV
+ M values
+ 5t 3y 4n 0 No Merge
+ 3t 3y 6n 1 VP Merge
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ 5t 3y 4n 2 VC Merge
+ 3t 3y 6n 3 VP & VC Merge
+ 6t 2y 4n D-bit
+ 6t 2y 4n ATM Label Range Component
+ 2t 3y 7n FR Session Param TLV
+ M values
+ 2t 3y 7n 0 No Merge
+ 2t 3y 7n 1 Merge
+ 2t 3y 7n D-bit
+ 2t 3y 7n FR Label Range Component
+ 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg ID TLV
+ 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private TLV
+ 1t 5y 6n Experimental TLV
+ LDP Messages
+ 12t 0y 0n Notification Msg
+ 12t 0y 0n Hello Msg
+ 12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg
+ 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg
+ 12t 0y 0n Address Msg
+ 12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg
+ 12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg
+ 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg Id TLV
+ 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV
+ 10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV
+ 9t 0y 3n Label Request Msg
+ 9t 0y 3n Hop Count TLV
+ 9t 0y 3n Path Vect TLV
+ 12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg
+ 12t 0y 0n Label TLV
+ 11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg
+ 10t 1y 1n Label TLV
+ 9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg
+ 2t 5y 5n Vendor-Private Msg
+ 1t 5y 6n Experimental Msg
+ LDP Status Codes
+ 9t 3y 0n Success
+ 8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length
+ 7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length
+ 7t 4y 0n Unknown TLV
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad TLV length
+ 7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value
+ 11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired
+ 11t 1y 0n Shutdown
+ 10t 1y 1n Loop Detected
+ 7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ 11t 1y 0n No Route
+ 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources
+ 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Available
+ Session Rejected
+ 7t 5y 0n No Hello
+ 9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode
+ 9t 2y 1n Param PDUMax Len
+ 8t 3y 1n Param Label Range
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time
+ 11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired
+ 9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted
+ 6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params
+ 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family
+ 7t 5y 0n Internal Error
+
+3. Security Considerations
+
+ This document is a survey of existing LDP implementations; it does
+ not specify any protocol behavior. Thus, security issues introduced
+ by the document are not discussed.
+
+4. Informative References
+
+ [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
+ Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
+
+ [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and
+ B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
+
+ [RFC3037] Thomas, B. and E. Gray, "LDP Applicability", RFC 3037,
+ January 2001.
+
+ [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
+ "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results
+
+LDP Implementation Survey Form (V 1.0)
+
+=======================================================================
+A. General Information
+
+Responders:
+
+ Anonymous: 2
+ Public: 10
+
+ Agilent Technologies
+ Celox Networks, Inc.
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+ Data Connection Ltd.
+ NetPlane Systems, Inc
+ Redback Networks
+ Riverstone Networks
+ Trillium, An Intel Company
+ Vivace Networks, Inc.
+ Wipro Technologies
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 8]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+=======================================================================
+B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
+
+Status:
+ [ ] Development
+ [ ] Alpha
+ [ 2] Beta
+ [10] Product
+ [ ] Other (describe):
+
+Availability:
+ [ ] Public and free
+ [ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free
+ [11] On sale
+ [ ] For internal company use only
+ [ 1] Other:
+
+Implementation based on: (check all that apply)
+ [ 1] Purchased code
+ (please list source if possible)
+ [ ] Free code
+ (please list source if possible)
+ [ 7] Internal implementation
+ (no outside code, just from specs)
+ [ 4] Internal implementation on top of purchased
+ or free code
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 9]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+=======================================================================
+C. LDP Feature Survey
+
+For each feature listed, please indicate the status of the
+implementation using one of the following:
+
+ 't' tested against another independent implementation
+ 'y' implemented but not tested against independent
+ implementation
+ 'n' not implemented
+ 'x' not applicable to this type of implementation
+
+ Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing
+ using one of the following:
+
+ 's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
+ 'u' utility of feature unclear
+ 'r' feature not required for feature set implemented
+
+ Feature RFC 3036 Section(s)
+ Survey Result
+
+ Interface types 2.2.1, 2.5.3,
+ 2.8.2, 3.4.2
+ 12t 0y 0n Packet
+ 2t 3y 7n(3r 1x) Frame Relay
+ 6t 2y 4n(3r) ATM
+ Label Spaces 2.2.1, 2.2.2
+ 12t 0y 0n Per platform
+ 7t 1y 4n(4r) Per interface
+ LDP Discovery 2.4
+ 12t 0y 0n Basic 2.4.1
+ 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.4.2
+ LDP Sessions 2.2.3
+ 12t 0y 0n Directly Connected --
+ 11t 1y 0n Targeted 2.3
+ LDP Modes 2.6
+ 7t 1y 4n(2u 1r) DU, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6
+ 8t 2y 2n(1r) DU, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6
+ 6t 0y 6n(2u 2r) DU, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6
+ 6t 1y 5n(1u 2r) DU, Ord cntl, Cons reten 2.6
+ 4t 2y 6n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Lib reten 2.6
+ 4t 3y 5n(2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Lib reten 2.6
+ 6t 1y 5n(2u 2r) DoD, Ind cntl, Cons reten 2.6
+ 7t 1y 4n(1u 2r) DoD, Ord cntl, Cons reten 2.6
+ Loop Detection 2.8
+ 9t 2y 1n
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 10]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ TCP MD5 Option 2.9
+ 3t 1y 8n(1u 1r 1x)
+ LDP TLVs 3.3, 3.4, throughout
+ 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) U-bit 3.3
+ 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) F-bit 3.3
+ FEC TLV 1, 2.1, 3.4.1
+ 6t 5y 1n(1r) Wildcard 3.4.1
+ 12t 0y 0n Prefix 3.4.1
+ 10t 0y 2n(s1 1u 1r) Host 2.1, 3.4.1
+ 12t 0y 0n Address List TLV 3.4.3
+ 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.4.4
+ 9t 2y 1n Path Vector TLV 3.4.5
+ 12t 0y 0n Generic Label TLV 3.4.2.1
+ 6t 2y 4n(2r) ATM Label TLV 3.4.2.2
+ 2t 3y 7n(1u 2r 1x) Frame Relay Label TLV 3.4.2.3
+ 12t 0y 0n Status TLV 3.4.6
+ 9t 3y 0n Extended Status TLV 3.5.1
+ 6t 4y 2n Returned PDU TLV 3.5.1
+ 6t 4y 2n Returned Message TLV 3.5.1
+ 12t 0y 0n Common Hello Param TLV 3.5.2
+ 12t 0y 0n T-bit 3.5.2
+ 11t 0y 1n R-bit 3.5.2
+ 11t 1y 0n Hold Time 3.5.2
+ 12t 0y 0n IPv4 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2
+ 7t 2y 3n Config Sequence Num TLV 3.5.2
+ 1t 1y 1n(1u 4r 1x) IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2
+ 12t 0y 0n Common Session Param TLV 3.5.3
+ 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Time 3.5.3
+ 11t 0y 1n PVLim 3.5.3
+ 11t 1y 0n PDU Max Length 3.5.3
+ 6t 2y 2n(1r 1x) ATM Session Param TLV 3.5.3
+ M values
+ 5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3
+ 3t 3y 6n(s 1 1r 1x) 1 VP Merge 3.5.3
+ 5t 3y 4n(1r 1x) 2 VC Merge 3.5.3
+ 3t 3y 6n(s1 1r 1x) 3 VP & VC Merge 3.5.3
+ 6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) D-bit 3.5.3
+ 6t 2y 4n(1r 1x) ATM Label Range 3.5.3
+ Component
+ 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Session Param TLV 3.5.3
+ M values
+ 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) 0 No Merge 3.5.3
+ 2t 3y 7n 1 Merge 3.5.3
+ 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) D-bit 3.5.3
+ 2t 3y 7n(1u 1r 2x) FR Label Range 3.5.3
+ Component
+ 10t 0y 2n Label Request Msg Id TLV 3.5.7
+ 2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private TLV 3.6.1.1
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 11]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ 1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental TLV 3.6.2
+ LDP Messages 3.5, throughout
+ 12t 0y 0n Notification Msg 3.5.1
+ 12t 0y 0n Hello Msg 3.5.2
+ 12t 0y 0n Initialization Msg 3.5.3
+ 12t 0y 0n KeepAlive Msg 3.5.4
+ 12t 0y 0n Address Msg 3.5.5
+ 12t 0y 0n Address Withdraw Msg 3.5.6
+ 12t 0y 0n Label Mapping Msg 3.5.7
+ 10t 0y 2n(1r) Label Request Msg Id TLV 3.5.7
+ 10t 1y 1n Hop Count TLV 3.5.7
+ 10t 1y 1n Path Vect TLV 3.5.7
+ 9t 0y 3n(1x) Label Request Msg 3.5.8
+ 9t 0y 3n(1x) Hop Count TLV 3.5.8
+ 9t 0y 3n(1x) Path Vect TLV 3.5.8
+ 12t 0y 0n Label Withdraw Msg 3.5.10
+ 12t 0y 0n Label TLV 3.5.10
+ 11t 0y 1n Label Release Msg 3.5.11
+ 10t 1y 1n Label TLV 3.5.11
+ 9t 2y 1n Label Abort Req Msg 3.5.9
+ 2t 5y 5n(1u 1r) Vendor-Private Msg 3.6.1.2
+ 1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental Msg 3.6.2
+ LDP Status Codes 3.4.6
+ 9t 3y 0n Success 3.4.6, 3.9
+ 8t 4y 0n Bad LDP Id 3.5.1.2.1
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad Ptcl Version 3.5.1.2.1
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad PDU Length 3.5.1.2.1
+ 7t 5y 0n Unknown Message Type 3.5.1.2.1
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad Message Length 3.5.1.2.1
+ 7t 4y 0n(1 noreply) Unknown TLV 3.5.1.2.2
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad TLV Length 3.5.1.2.2
+ 7t 5y 0n Malformed TLV Value 3.5.1.2.2
+ 11t 1y 0n Hold Timer Expired 3.5.1.2.3
+ 11t 1y 0n Shutdown 3.5.1.2.4
+ 10t 1y 1n Loop Detected 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1
+ 7t 5y 0n Unknown FEC 3.4.1.1
+ 11t 1y 0n No Route 3.5.8.1
+ 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 3.5.8.1
+ 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Available 3.5.8.1
+ Session Rejected 2.5.3, 3.5.3
+ 7t 5y 0n No Hello 2.5.3, 3.5.3
+ 9t 2y 1n Param Advert Mode 2.5.3, 3.5.3
+ 9t 2y 1n Param PDU Max Len 2.5.3, 3.5.3
+ 8t 3y 1n Param Label Range 2.5.3, 3.5.3
+ 7t 5y 0n Bad KA Time 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3
+ 11t 1y 0n KeepAlive Timer Expired 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3
+ 9t 1y 2n Label Request Aborted 3.5.9.1
+ 6t 5y 1n Missing Message Params 3.5.1.2.1
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 12]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1
+ 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 3.5.1.2.7
+
+Appendix B. LDP Implementation Survey Form
+
+LDP Implementation Survey Form (V 1.0)
+
+The purpose of this form is to gather information about implementations
+of LDP as defined by RFC 3036. The information is being requested as
+part of the process of advancing LDP from Proposed to Draft Standard.
+
+The form is patterned after the implementation report form used for
+HTTP/1.1; see:
+
+http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/http1.1-implementations.txt
+
+=======================================================================
+A. General Information
+
+Please provide the following information.
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Organization:
+
+Organization url(s):
+
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Product title(s):
+
+Brief description(s):
+
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Contact for LDP information
+ Name:
+ Title:
+ E-mail:
+ Organization/department:
+ Postal address:
+ Phone:
+ Fax:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 13]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+=======================================================================
+B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
+
+Please check [x] the boxes that apply.
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Status:
+ [ ] Development
+ [ ] Alpha
+ [ ] Beta
+ [ ] Product
+ [ ] Other (describe):
+
+Availability
+ [ ] Public and free
+ [ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free
+ [ ] On sale.
+ [ ] For internal company use only
+ [ ] Other:
+
+Implementation based on: (check all that apply)
+ [ ] Purchased code
+ (please list source if possible)
+ [ ] Free code
+ (please list source if possible)
+ [ ] Internal implementation
+ (no outside code, just from specs)
+ [ ] Internal implementation on top of purchased
+ or free code
+ List portions from external source:
+ List portions developed internally:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 14]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+=======================================================================
+C. LDP Feature Survey
+
+For each feature listed, please indicate the status of the
+implementation using one of the following:
+
+ 't' tested against another independent implementation
+ 'y' implemented but not tested against independent implementation
+ 'n' not implemented
+ '-' not applicable to this type of implementation
+
+ Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing using
+ one of the following:
+
+ 's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
+ 'u' utility of feature unclear
+ 'r' feature not required for feature set implemented
+
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ | | Status
+ | | (one of t, y, n, -;
+ | | if n, optionally
+Feature | RFC 3036 Section(s) | one of s, u, r)
+==================+=============================+=======================
+Interface types | 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3.4.2
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Packet | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Frame Relay | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ ATM | |
+==================+=============================+=======================
+Label Spaces | 2.2.1, 2.2.2
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Per platform | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Per interface | |
+==================+=============================+=======================
+LDP Discovery | 2.4
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Basic | 2.4.1 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Targeted | 2.4.2 |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 15]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+LDP Sessions | 2.2.3
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Directly | -- |
+ Connected | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Targeted | 2.3 |
+==================+=============================+=======================
+LDP Modes | 2.6
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Lib retention | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Lib retention | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DU, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Cons retention | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DU, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Cons retention | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Lib retention | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Lib retention | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DoD, Ind cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Cons retention | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ DoD, Ord cntl, | 2.6 |
+ Cons retention | |
+==================+=============================+=======================
+Loop Detection | 2.8 |
+==================+=============================+=======================
+TCP MD5 Option | 2.9 |
+==================+=============================+=======================
+LDP TLVs | 3.3, 3.4, throughout
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ U-bit | 3.3 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ F-bit | 3.3 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ FEC | 1., 2.1, 3.4.1 |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 16]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Wildcard | 3.4.1 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Prefix | 2.1, 3.4.1 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Host | 2.1, 3.4.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Address List | 3.4.3 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Hop Count | 3.4.4 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Path Vector | 3.4.5 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Generic Label | 3.4.2.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ ATM Label | 3.4.2.2 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Frame Relay | 3.4.2.3 |
+ Label | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Status | 3.4.6 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Extended Status | 3.5.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Returned PDU | 3.5.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Returned Message| 3.5.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Common Hello | 3.5.2 |
+ Parameters | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ T-bit | 3.5.2 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ R-bit | 3.5.2 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Hold Time | 3.5.2 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ IPv4 Transport | 3.5.2 |
+ Address | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Configuration | 3.5.2 |
+ Sequence Number | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ IPv6 Transport | 3.5.2 |
+ Address | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Common Session | 3.5.3 |
+ Parameters | |
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 17]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ KeepAlive Time| 3.5.3 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ PVLim | 3.5.3 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Max PDU Length| 3.5.3 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ ATM Session | 3.5.3 |
+ Parameters | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ M values | |
+ 0 No Merge | 3.5.3 |
+ ------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ 1 VP Merge | 3.5.3 |
+ ------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ 2 VC Merge | 3.5.3 |
+ ------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ 3 VP & | 3.5.3 |
+ VC Merge | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ D-bit | 3.5.3 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ ATM Label | 3.5.3 |
+ Range | |
+ Component | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Frame Relay | 3.5.3 |
+ Session | |
+ Parameters | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ M values | |
+ 0 No Merge | 3.5.3 |
+ ------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ 1 Merge | 3.5.3 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ D-bit | 3.5.3 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Frame Relay | 3.5.3 |
+ Label Range | |
+ Component | |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Request | 3.5.7 |
+ Message Id | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Experimental | 3.6.2 |
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 18]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+==================+=============================+=======================
+LDP Messages | 3.5, throughout
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Notification | 3.5.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Hello | 3.5.2 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Initialization | 3.5.3 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ KeepAlive | 3.5.4 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Address | 3.5.5 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Address Withdraw| 3.5.6 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Mapping | 3.5.7 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Request | 3.5.7 |
+ Message Id TLV| |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Hop Count TLV | 3.5.7 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Path Vect TLV | 3.5.7 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Request | 3.5.8 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Hop Count TLV | 3.5.8 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Path Vect TLV | 3.5.8 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Withdraw | 3.5.10 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label TLV | 3.5.10 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Release | 3.5.11 |
+ ----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label TLV | 3.5.11 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Abort Req | 3.5.9 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Vendor-Private | 3.6.1.2 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Experimental | 3.6.2 |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 19]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+==================+=============================+=======================
+LDP Status Codes | 3.4.6
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Success | 3.4.6, 3.9 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Bad LDP Id | 3.5.1.2.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Bad Ptcl Version| 3.5.1.2.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Bad PDU Length | 3.5.1.2.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Unknown Message | 3.5.1.2.1 |
+ Type | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Bad Message | 3.5.1.2.1 |
+ Length | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Unknown TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Bad TLV length | 3.5.1.2.2 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Malformed TLV | 3.5.1.2.2 |
+ Value | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Hold Timer | 3.5.1.2.3 |
+ Expired | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Shutdown | 3.5.1.2.4 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Loop Detected | 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Unknown FEC | 3.4.1.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ No Route | 3.5.8.1 |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ No Label | 3.5.8.1 |
+ Resources | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Resources | 3.5.8.1 |
+ Available | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
+ No Hello | |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 20]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
+ Parameters | |
+ Advert Mode | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
+ Parameters | |
+ Max PDU Length | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Session Rejected| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 |
+ Parameters | |
+ Label Range | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ KeepAlive Timer | 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 |
+ Expired | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Label Request | 3.5.9.1 |
+ Aborted | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Missing Message | 3.5.1.2.1 |
+ Parameters | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Unsupported | 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 |
+ Address Family | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Session Rejected| 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 |
+ Bad KeepAlive | |
+ Time | |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
+ Internal Error | 3.5.1.2.7 |
+==================+=============================+=======================
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 21]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+Author's Addresses
+
+ Bob Thomas
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+ 1414 Massachusetts Ave.
+ Boxborough MA 01719
+
+ EMail: rhthomas@cisco.com
+
+
+ Loa Andersson
+ Acreo AB
+ Isafjordsgatan 22
+ Kista, Sweden
+
+ EMail: loa.andersson@acreo.se
+ loa@pi.se
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 22]
+
+RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+ 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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 23]
+