GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5038

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:
  1. Responding organization. Provisions were made to accommodate

organizations that wished to respond anonymously.

  1. The status, availability, and origin of the LDP implementation.
  1. 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:
  1. A responders implemented the feature and tested it against

another independent implementation (t)

  1. B responders implemented the feature but have not tested it

against an independent implemented (y)

  1. C responders did not implement the feature (n)
    (Ds Eu Fr) indicates optional responses:
  1. D responders thought the RFC 3036 specification of the feature

inadequate, unclear, or confusing (s).

  1. E responders thought the utility of the feature unclear (u).
  2. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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

  1. 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
  1. Platform and Interface Label Spaces were both widely supported.
          12t 0y 0n  Per platform
           7t 1y 4n  Per interface
  1. LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported.
          12t 0y 0n  Basic/Directly Connected
          11t 1y 0n  Targeted
  1. 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

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Packet | |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Frame Relay | |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

ATM | |

+=============================+

Label Spaces | 2.2.1, 2.2.2

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Per platform | |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Per interface | |

+=============================+

LDP Discovery | 2.4

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Basic | 2.4.1 |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Targeted | 2.4.2 |

Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 15] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007

——————+—————————–+———————– LDP Sessions | 2.2.3

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Directly | – |

Connected       |                             |
----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
Targeted        | 2.3                         |

+=============================+

LDP Modes | 2.6

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

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

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

U-bit | 3.3 |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

F-bit | 3.3 | ——————+—————————–+———————–

FEC             | 1., 2.1, 3.4.1              |

Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 16] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Wildcard | 3.4.1 |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

Prefix | 2.1, 3.4.1 |

  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

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

KeepAlive Time| 3.5.3 |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

PVLim | 3.5.3 |

  1. —————+—————————–+———————–

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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5038.txt · Last modified: 2007/10/10 17:49 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki