OpenRFC.org Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
 
<< Previous <<      RFC 5038      >> Next >>    
The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Implementation Survey Results.
B. Thomas, L. Andersson. October 2007.

 
[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]
 

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]

   

[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.