Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA16708 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:21:08 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA11254 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:21:05 GMT To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: RFC Editor Cc: Internet Architecture Board Cc: bgp@ans.net From: The IESG Subject: Document Action: Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS) to BCP Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 14:59:55 -0500 Message-Id: <9602271500.aa29585@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft "Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)" for publication as a Best Current Practices RFC. This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact person is Joel Halpern. Technical Summary This document clarifies the definition of an Autonomous System. It then provides clear guidelines for when AS numbers should be assigned, and explanations for when they are NOT needed. This is intended to help control the unnecessary assignment of AS numbers, while clearly providing for the assignemnet of numbers when necessary. Working Group Summary There was strong support in the working group for this document. Protocol Quality This document was reviewed by Joel M. Halpern, the Routing Area Director for the IESG. While there are no "implementations", the document does reflect the practices that many services providers are either using or endevouring to put into place. Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA13225 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:09:02 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA03620 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Mon, 26 Feb 1996 22:08:43 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 17:08:30 EST From: pknight@baynetworks.com (Paul Knight) Message-Id: <9602262208.AA08046@pobox.BayNetworks.com> To: bgp@ans.net Subject: Source for expired bgp docs? Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Anyone know a source for: - BGP Communities draft-chandra-bgp-communities-00.txt - BGP Confederations draft-traina-bgp-confed-00.txt ??? They are no longer on ds.internic.net (aged out...) Thanks, Paul Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA13206 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 22 Feb 1996 13:48:11 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA11153 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Thu, 22 Feb 1996 18:48:01 GMT Message-Id: <199602221838.KAA22411@puli.cisco.com> To: bgp@ans.net Subject: IDR WG agenda Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:38:42 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Folks, Here is the list of things I'd like to put on our agenda for the WG meeting: 1. IDRP for IPv[46] draft-ietf-idr-idrp-v4v6-02.txt 2. Destination Preference Attribute (DPA) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-dpa-04.txt draft-ietf-idr-dpa-application-02.txt draft-ietf-idr-symm-multi-prov-02.txt 3. BGP-4 MIB draft-ietf-bgp-mibv4-06.txt 4. BGP Communities draft-chandra-bgp-communities-00.txt 5. BGP Confederations draft-traina-bgp-confed-00.txt Please send me any other items you'd like to put on the agenda. Thanks. Yakov. Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA17957 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:50:20 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA37808 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Thu, 22 Feb 1996 17:50:12 GMT Message-Id: <199602221750.JAA19228@puli.cisco.com> To: bgp@ans.net Cc: yakov@cisco.com Subject: BGP-4 MIB Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:50:05 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Folks, In order to advance BGP-4 MIB to a Draft Standard the IESG asked the WG to provide the following information: o were all tables & scalars implemented? o if a table was implemented, were all the objects implemented? - if object(s) weren't implemented, why? o were the R/W objects implemented with R/W access o were the traps implemented? o are there objects/traps that you would recommend be added to the mib module? Have you implementation experience with these objects/traps? For vendors that don't want to publicize their results, they can reply privately back to me. This information is then summarized and presented back to the working group and the IESG. Please try to provide the information asap. Many thanks in advance. Yakov. Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA18579 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:52:41 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA27245 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:52:33 GMT Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:50:42 +0500 From: jhalpern@us.newbridge.com (Joel Halpern) Message-Id: <9602131450.AA12272@lobster.newbridge> To: bgp@ans.net Subject: DNS Document X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Content-Length: 427 Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net The Domain Name System Security Working Group has requested that Mapping Automous Systems Number into the Domain Name System Be advanced to proposed standard. I would appreciate feedback from the BGP working group as to whether this working group sees any difficulties with this document. Yours, Joel M. Halpern jhalpern@newbridge.com Newbridge Networks Inc. Routing Area Director Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA15639 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:54:11 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA27278 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:54:09 GMT Message-Id: <199602131554.HAA29817@hubbub.cisco.com> To: bgp@ans.net Subject: BGP-4 MIB to Draft Standard Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 07:54:01 PST From: Yakov Rekhter Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Folks, In order to advance BGP-4 MIB to Draft Standar the IESG asked the WG to supply the following information: o were all tables & scalars implemented? o if a table was implemented, were all the objects implemented? - if object(s) weren't implemented, why? o were the R/W objects implemented with R/W access o were the traps implemented? o are there objects/traps that you would recommend be added to the mib module? Have you implementation experience with these objects/traps? For vendors that don't want to publicize their results, they can reply privately back to me. I will summarize the information presented it back to the working group and the IESG. Please try to send the information asap. Many thanks in advance. Yakov. Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA17196 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:27:19 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA19930 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:24:55 GMT Message-Id: <199602061824.KAA18205@hubbub.cisco.com> To: bgp@ans.net Subject: BGP-4 MIB information Date: Tue, 06 Feb 96 10:24:47 PST From: Yakov Rekhter Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net Folks, In order to advance BGP-4 MIB to a Draft Standard the IESG asked Working Group to supply the following information: o were all tables & scalars implemented? o if a table was implemented, were all the objects implemented? - if object(s) weren't implemented, why? o were the R/W objects implemented with R/W access o were the traps implemented? o are there objects/traps that you would recommend be added to the mib module? Have you implementation experience with these objects/traps? I would appreciate if implementors of BGP-4 MIB would drop me a note with the answers to the above questions. The answers would be summarized and presented to the IESG. The summary *will not* include names of vendors. Yakov. Received: from p-o.ans.net by ftp.ans.net with SMTP id AA16621 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 5 Feb 1996 15:06:03 -0500 Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA16073 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Mon, 5 Feb 1996 20:05:49 GMT Message-Id: <199602052005.PAA13476@home.merit.edu> To: bgp@ans.net Cc: skh@merit.edu, yakov@cisco.com Subject: Advancing BGP/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 15:05:39 -0500 From: Susan Hares Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bgp@ans.net John Moy surveyed those using OSPF to see features of the protocol were implemented, Interoperated and Deployed. As is reported in the the survey below, 6 vendors had implemented the BGP-OSPF Interaction 3 vendors had interoperated 3 vendors had product deployed with this feature. Due to this, I suggest that the IDR working group vote to advance the BGP/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) be advanced from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. I will hold a 3 week discussion period for an appropriate "hum" on this proposal. Sue Hares ========= John Moy's survey From: jmoy@alpo.casc.com (John Moy) To: ospf@gated.cornell.edu Cc: jmoy@alpo.casc.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:14:45 +0500 Subject: Implementation survey results Hi. Here are the results of the implementation survey that I sent out a month ago. I received 12 responses in all (thanks very much to everyone that did respond). The way I've tabulated the results is as follows. For the features, I've counted all the "yes" indications. For the scaling, I've calculated a minimum/mean/average/maximum. Note that not everyone responded to all the scaling questions (some responded to none of them, others to only a subset). So I've also indicated in parenthesis how many people responded to each scaling question. Based on these results, it does seem that we need a little more interoperability testing with the new features (Cryptographic authentication and Point-to-MultiPoint). Also, it seems that if the authors of the BGP/OSPF interaction document want to advance it, they have enough interoperability and deployment experience to do so. Thanks, John ^L OSPF Implementation Survey Vendor: ___________12______________________ Independent Implementation? (y/n): ___6____ Features: (all y/n) RFC# Implemented? Interoperated? Deployed? OSPF areas: 1583 __10__ __10__ __10__ stub areas: 1583 __10__ __10__ ___9__ NSSAs: 1587 ___3__ ___0__ ___0__ Virtual links: 1583 __10__ ___9__ ___7__ Equal-cost multipath: 1583 __10__ ___7__ ___8__ TOS routing: 1583 ___2__ ___0__ ___1__ NBMA support: 1583 ___9__ ___8__ ___7__ VLSMs (CIDR prefixes): 1583 ___8__ ___5__ ___5__ OSPF MIB: 1850 ___8__ ___4__ ___3__ OSPF Cryptographic auth.: I-D ___2__ ___0__ ___1__ Point-to-Multipoint ifc.: I-D ___3__ ___1__ ___2__ BGP-OSPF Interaction: 1745 ___6__ ___3__ ___3__ OSPF database overflow: 1765 ___3__ ___0__ ___1__ Demand circuit extensions: 1793 ___1__ ___0__ ___1__ MOSPF: 1584 ___3__ ___1__ ___3__ inter-area multicast: 1584 ___3__ ___1__ ___3__ inter-AS multicast: 1584 ___2__ ___0__ ___2__ TOS-based multicast: 1584 ___0__ ___0__ ___0__ Scaling: (reported as min/mean/avg/max) of responses Tested? Deployed? Max routers in domain: 30/240/460/1600 (7) 20/350/510/1000 (8) Max routers in single area: 20/240/380/1600 (7) 20/100/160/350 (8) Max areas in domain: 1/10/16/60 (7) 1/15/23/60 (7) Max AS-external-LSAs: 50/10K/10K/30K (9) 50/1K/2K/5K (6)