RFC5038 日本語訳
5038 The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Implementation SurveyResults. B. Thomas, L. Andersson. October 2007. (Format: TXT=46890 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
英語原文
Network Working Group B. Thomas
Request for Comments: 5038 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Informational L. Andersson
Acreo AB
October 2007
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
The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Implementation Survey Results
Status of This Memo
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 1] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
1. Introduction
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.
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.
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 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.
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
1.1. The LDP Survey Form
The LDP implementation survey requested the following information about LDP implementation:
The LDP implementation survey requested the following information about LDP implementation:
- Responding organization. Provisions were made to accommodate
organizations that wished to respond anonymously.
- Responding organization. Provisions were made to accommodate organizations that wished to respond anonymously.
- The status, availability, and origin of the LDP implementation.
- 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:
- 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
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
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:
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
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:
This document uses the following conventions for reporting survey results for a feature:
At By Cn indicates:
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)
- 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:
(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).
- 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
1.2. LDP Survey Highlights
This section presents some highlights from the implementation survey.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 3] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
- Each of the 8 LDP Label Distribution Modes implemented and
tested:
- 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
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.
- Platform and Interface Label Spaces were both widely supported.
12t 0y 0n Per platform
7t 1y 4n Per interface
12t 0y 0n Per platform 7t 1y 4n Per interface
- LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported.
- LDP Basic and Targeted Sessions were both widely supported.
12t 0y 0n Basic/Directly Connected
11t 1y 0n Targeted
12t 0y 0n Basic/Directly Connected 11t 1y 0n Targeted
- The TCP MD5 Option for LDP session TCP connections was not
widely implemented.
- The TCP MD5 Option for LDP session TCP connections was not widely implemented.
3t 1y 8n
3t 1y 8n
2. Survey Results for LDP Features
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
4. Informative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 7] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results
Appendix A. Full LDP Survey Results
LDP Implementation Survey Form (V 1.0)
LDP Implementation Survey Form (V 1.0)
======================================================================= A. General Information
======================================================================= A. General Information
Responders:
Responders:
Anonymous: 2 Public: 10
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
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
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 8] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
======================================================================= B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
======================================================================= B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
Status:
[ ] Development
[ ] Alpha
[ 2] Beta
[10] Product
[ ] Other (describe):
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:
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
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
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 9] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
======================================================================= C. LDP Feature Survey
======================================================================= C. LDP Feature Survey
For each feature listed, please indicate the status of the implementation using one of the following:
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
'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:
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
'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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Appendix B. LDP Implementation Survey Form
LDP Implementation Survey Form (V 1.0)
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 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:
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
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/http1.1-implementations.txt
======================================================================= A. General Information
======================================================================= A. General Information
Please provide the following information. ----------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide the following information. ----------------------------------------------------------------
Organization:
Organization:
Organization url(s):
Organization url(s):
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Product title(s):
Product title(s):
Brief description(s):
Brief description(s):
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Contact for LDP information Name: Title: E-mail: Organization/department: Postal address: Phone: Fax:
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
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 13] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
======================================================================= B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
======================================================================= B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin
Please check [x] the boxes that apply. ----------------------------------------------------------------
[x] 適用される箱をチェックしてください。 ----------------------------------------------------------------
Status:
[ ] Development
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] Product
[ ] Other (describe):
状態: [ ] 開発[ ]アルファ[ ]ベータ[ ]製品[ ]もう一方(説明します):
Availability
[ ] Public and free
[ ] Only to selected organizations/companies but free
[ ] On sale.
[ ] For internal company use only
[ ] Other:
組織/会社を選択しますが、[ ] On販売を解放するためには唯一の有用性[ ]公衆と自由な[ ]。 [ ] 内部の会社には、[ ]だけを別に使用してください:
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:
以下に基づいて実現 (適用されるすべてをチェックします) [ ] 外部電源からの購入されたか自由なコードList部分の上の購入されたコード(できれば、リストソースを喜ばせる)の[ ]の無料のコード(できれば、リストソースを喜ばせる)の[ ]の内部の実現(まさしく仕様からの外のコードがない)の[ ]の内部の実現: リスト部分は内部的に展開しました:
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 14] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[14ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
======================================================================= C. LDP Feature Survey
======================================================================= C。 自由民主党の特徴調査
For each feature listed, please indicate the status of the implementation using one of the following:
リストアップされた各特徴に関しては、以下の1つを使用することで実現の状態を示してください:
't' tested against another independent implementation
'y' implemented but not tested against independent implementation
'n' not implemented
'-' not applicable to this type of implementation
実行されていることでの'yを'別の独立している実現に対してテストしない''にもかかわらず、'このタイプの実現に適切でない独立している実現と実行されなかった'--'に対してテストしません。
Optional: For 'n' status, indicate reason for not implementing using
one of the following:
任意: '、'状態、以下の使用1つを実行しないように以下を推論するように示してください。
's' RFC specification inadequate, unclear, or confusing
'u' utility of feature unclear
'r' feature not required for feature set implemented
'r'の特徴は特徴セットに必要でないことが不明瞭な特徴の不十分であるか、不明瞭であるか、紛らわしい'u'ユーティリティが履行した's'RFC仕様
------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
| | 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 |
------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- | | 状態| | (tの1つ、y、n、-、; | | nであるなら任意に、Feature| RFC3036セクション| sの1つ、u、r) ==================+=============================+======================= インターフェース型| 2.2.1, 2.5.3, 2.8.2, 3.4.2 ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- パケット| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- フレームリレー| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 気圧| | ==================+=============================+======================= ラベル空間| 2.2.1, 2.2.2 ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- プラットホーム単位で| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- インタフェース単位で| | ==================+=============================+======================= 自由民主党の発見| 2.4 ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 基本的| 2.4.1 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 狙います。| 2.4.2 |
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 15] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[15ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 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 |
------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 自由民主党のセッション| 2.2.3 ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 直接| -- | 接続されます。| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 狙います。| 2.3 | ==================+=============================+======================= 自由民主党モード| 2.6 ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DU、インディアン座cntl| 2.6 | リブ保有| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DU、オード川cntl| 2.6 | リブ保有| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DU、インディアン座cntl| 2.6 | コンズの保有| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DU、オード川cntl| 2.6 | コンズの保有| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DoD、インディアン座cntl| 2.6 | リブ保有| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DoD、オード川cntl| 2.6 | リブ保有| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DoD、インディアン座cntl| 2.6 | コンズの保有| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- DoD、オード川cntl| 2.6 | コンズの保有| | ==================+=============================+======================= 輪の検出| 2.8 | ==================+=============================+======================= TCP MD5オプション| 2.9 | ==================+=============================+======================= 自由民主党TLVs| 3.3 3.4と、あらゆる点で----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- U-ビット| 3.3 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- F-ビット| 3.3 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- FEC| 1., 2.1, 3.4.1 |
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 16] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[16ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
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 | |
----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ワイルドカード| 3.4.1 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 接頭語| 2.1, 3.4.1 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ホスト| 2.1, 3.4.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 住所録| 3.4.3 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ホップカウント| 3.4.4 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 経路ベクトル| 3.4.5 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 一般的なラベル| 3.4.2.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 気圧ラベル| 3.4.2.2 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- フレームリレー| 3.4.2.3 | ラベル| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 状態| 3.4.6 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 敷衍された状態| 3.5.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 返されたPDU| 3.5.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 返されたメッセージ| 3.5.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 通例、こんにちは。| 3.5.2 | パラメタ| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- T-ビット| 3.5.2 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- R-ビット| 3.5.2 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 保持時間| 3.5.2 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- IPv4輸送| 3.5.2 | アドレス| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 構成| 3.5.2 | 一連番号| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- IPv6輸送| 3.5.2 | アドレス| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 一般的なセッション| 3.5.3 | パラメタ| |
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 17] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[17ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------
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 |
----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- KeepAlive時間| 3.5.3 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- PVLim| 3.5.3 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- マックスPDU Length| 3.5.3 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 気圧セッション| 3.5.3 | パラメタ| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- M値| | 0 マージがありません。| 3.5.3 | ------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 1 VPは合併します。| 3.5.3 | ------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 2 VCは合併します。| 3.5.3 | ------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 3VP| 3.5.3 | VCは合併します。| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- D-ビット| 3.5.3 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 気圧ラベル| 3.5.3 | 範囲| | コンポーネント| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- フレームリレー| 3.5.3 | セッション| | パラメタ| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- M値| | 0 マージがありません。| 3.5.3 | ------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 1 マージ| 3.5.3 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- D-ビット| 3.5.3 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- フレームリレー| 3.5.3 | ラベル範囲| | コンポーネント| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベル要求| 3.5.7 | メッセージイド| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 業者個人的です。| 3.6.1.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 実験的| 3.6.2 |
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 18] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[18ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
==================+=============================+=======================
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 |
==================+=============================+======================= 自由民主党メッセージ| 3.5 あらゆる点で------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 通知| 3.5.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- こんにちは| 3.5.2 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 初期設定| 3.5.3 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- KeepAlive| 3.5.4 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- アドレス| 3.5.5 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- アドレスは引き下がります。| 3.5.6 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルマッピング| 3.5.7 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベル要求| 3.5.7 | メッセージイドTLV| | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ホップカウントTLV| 3.5.7 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 経路Vect TLV| 3.5.7 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベル要求| 3.5.8 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ホップカウントTLV| 3.5.8 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 経路Vect TLV| 3.5.8 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルは引き下がります。| 3.5.10 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルTLV| 3.5.10 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルリリース| 3.5.11 | ----------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルTLV| 3.5.11 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルアボートReq| 3.5.9 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 業者個人的です。| 3.6.1.2 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 実験的| 3.6.2 |
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 19] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[19ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
==================+=============================+======================= 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 | |
==================+=============================+======================= 自由民主党ステータスコード| 3.4.6 ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 成功| 3.4.6, 3.9 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 悪い自由民主党イド| 3.5.1.2.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 悪いPtclバージョン| 3.5.1.2.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 悪いPDUの長さ| 3.5.1.2.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 未知のメッセージ| 3.5.1.2.1 | タイプ| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 悪いメッセージ| 3.5.1.2.1 | 長さ| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 未知のTLV| 3.5.1.2.2 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 悪いTLVの長さ| 3.5.1.2.2 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 奇形のTLV| 3.5.1.2.2 | 値| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- タイマを持ってください。| 3.5.1.2.3 | 期限が切れます。| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 閉鎖| 3.5.1.2.4 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 検出された輪| 3.4.5.1.2, 3.5.8.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 未知のFEC| 3.4.1.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ルートがありません。| 3.5.8.1 | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルなし| 3.5.8.1 | リソース| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベルリソース| 3.5.8.1 | 利用可能| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 拒絶されたセッション| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | いいえ、こんにちは| |
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 20] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[20ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 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 | ==================+=============================+=======================
------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 拒絶されたセッション| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | パラメタ| | モードを言及してください。| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 拒絶されたセッション| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | パラメタ| | マックスPDU Length| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 拒絶されたセッション| 2.5.3, 3.5.3 | パラメタ| | ラベル範囲| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- KeepAliveタイマ| 2.5.6, 3.5.1.2.3 | 期限が切れます。| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- ラベル要求| 3.5.9.1 | 中止されます。| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- なくなったメッセージ| 3.5.1.2.1 | パラメタ| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- サポートされない| 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 | アドレス家族| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 拒絶されたセッション| 3.5.1.2.5, 3.5.3 | 悪いKeepAlive| | 時間| | ------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------- 内部エラー| 3.5.1.2.7 | ==================+=============================+=======================
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 21] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[21ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
Author's Addresses
作者のアドレス
Bob Thomas Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Ave. Boxborough MA 01719
ボブトーマスシスコシステムズInc.1414マサチューセッツAve。 Boxborough MA 01719
EMail: rhthomas@cisco.com
メール: rhthomas@cisco.com
Loa Andersson Acreo AB Isafjordsgatan 22 Kista, Sweden
Kista、LoaアンデションAcreo AB Isafjordsgatan22スウェーデン
EMail: loa.andersson@acreo.se
loa@pi.se
メール: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 22] RFC 5038 LDP Implementation Survey Results October 2007
トーマスとアンデション情報[22ページ]のRFC5038自由民主党の実現調査は2007年10月に結果として生じます。
Full Copyright Statement
完全な著作権宣言文
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
IETFが信じる著作権(C)(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.
このドキュメントはBCP78に含まれた権利、ライセンス、および制限を受けることがあります、そして、そこに詳しく説明されるのを除いて、作者は彼らのすべての権利を保有します。
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.
このドキュメントとここに含まれた情報はその人が代理をするか、または(もしあれば)後援される組織、インターネットの振興発展を目的とする組織、「そのままで」という基礎と貢献者の上で提供していて、IETFはそして、インターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォースがすべての保証を放棄すると信じます、急行である、または暗示していて、他を含んでいて、情報の使用がここに侵害しないどんな保証も少しもまっすぐになるということであるかいずれが市場性か特定目的への適合性の黙示的な保証です。
Intellectual Property
知的所有権
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.
IETFはどんなIntellectual Property Rightsの正当性か範囲、実現に関係すると主張されるかもしれない他の権利、本書では説明された技術の使用またはそのような権利の下におけるどんなライセンスも利用可能であるかもしれない、または利用可能でないかもしれない範囲に関しても立場を全く取りません。 または、それはそれを表しません。どんなそのような権利も特定するためのどんな独立している努力もしました。 BCP78とBCP79でRFCドキュメントの権利に関する手順に関する情報を見つけることができます。
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.
IPR公開のコピーが利用可能に作られるべきライセンスの保証、または一般的な免許を取得するのが作られた試みの結果をIETF事務局といずれにもしたか、または http://www.ietf.org/ipr のIETFのオンラインIPR倉庫からこの仕様のimplementersかユーザによるそのような所有権の使用のために許可を得ることができます。
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.
IETFはこの規格を実行するのに必要であるかもしれない技術をカバーするかもしれないどんな著作権もその注目していただくどんな利害関係者、特許、特許出願、または他の所有権も招待します。 ietf-ipr@ietf.org のIETFに情報を記述してください。
Thomas & Andersson Informational [Page 23]
トーマスとアンデションInformationalです。[23ページ]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
