Subject: [Idr] Inter-operable BGP implementations - Call for information

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:18:05 -0400

IDR folks: 

I am revising the BGP implementation survey, and
need an updated on inter-operable implementations.
I will accept input for 2 weeks ending 6/2/04.  
At that time, I will release version -01 of the BGP
implementation survey. 

If you have an implementation of BGP and
you did not send in an implementation report
(answering the 259 questions),  could
you send me the answer the following questions

1) BGP product
	Contributor (your name): 
	Company: 
	name of product: 
	version and minor of software
	release date

2) What other implementations you 
     interoperate with.

3) Do you inter-operate with

	1) Alcatel BGP (release) 
	2) cisco BGP IOS 12.0(27)s
	3) laurel BGP (specify release)
	4) NextHop GateD

4) Did the length of the survey for BGP
   cause you to not submit the BGP
   implementation report?

Sue Hares 

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:52:17 +0300 (EEST)

> At that time, I will release version -01 of the BGP

FWIW, if you look at RFC2026, it's not sufficient that you have
interoperable implementations (in general), there must be two
interoperable implementations of _every feature_ of the spec.

>From 4.1.2,
                                                            For the
   purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
   equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
   which they are used.

The interpretation of what this means has been quite blur, but it 
would be better that if interop tests explicitly tested each feature 
of the spec, not the spec as a whole.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:52:17 +0300 (EEST)

For the

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:49:10 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Pekka Savola 
> of the spec, not the spec as a whole.

Field experience has already proven many BGP implementations to be
interoperable by the definition above.  You can pull out a brand X
router and put in a brand Y router it all works fine, for a large set
of X and Y.

The spec has a lot of MUST and SHOULD and the first survey asked for
an answer for each one of them.  A lot of providers just didn't make
it through verifying which of the SHOULDs they needed to check off
before the cutoff for accepting these (which was just a few weeks).

I don't really know Sue's motivation for this latest request.

What might me useful would be to include the responses to the original
survey, add any that come in, and include the interoperability
experience (without full surveys) that Sue has asked for just as
further evidence that there are a lot of interoperable BGP
implementations.

We should be able to update the protocol experiences doc (if we want
to) after the whole set goes through six months or a year from now if
additional vendors come forward with completed surveys.

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:49:10 -0400

Curtis