HTTP/2 302 date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:04:16 GMT content-type: text/html content-length: 143 location: https://get.ietf.org/implementation-report/report-rfc3065bis.txt cache-control: private, max-age=0, no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0 expires: Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT vary: Accept-Encoding server: cloudflare cf-ray: 95f089cd0f52c167-BLR alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400 HTTP/2 200 date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:04:17 GMT content-type: text/plain etag: W/"0ffcbc1ac9331df11b51aac19c82fde2" vary: Accept-Encoding server: cloudflare cf-ray: 95f089cd5903a9c3-BLR content-encoding: gzip alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400 Danny McPherson Arbor Networks, Inc. November 2005 RFC3065bis Implementation Report Abstract This document provides an implementation report for Autonomous System Confederations for BGP as defined in draft-ietf-idr- rfc3065bis-05.txt. The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for which their responses represent. 1. Introduction Autonomous System Confederations for BGP describes an extension to BGP which may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement inherent to BGP. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system. This document provides an implementation report for Autonomous System Confederations for BGP as defined in draft-ietf-idr- rfc3065bis-05.txt. The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for which their responses represent. 2. Implementation Forms Contact and implementation information for person filling out this form: Name: Arijit "Ory" Sarcar Email: Arijit.Sarcar@alcatel.com Vendor: ALCATEL Release: TiMOS 3.0 or greater Name: Robert Raszuk Email: raszuk@cisco.com Vendor: Cisco Systems Inc Release: IOS and IOS-XR Name: Manish Vora Email: Manish.Vora@ecitele.com Vendor: ECI Telecom (formerly Laurel Networks) Release: Shadetree 3.2 2.1. Operations Compliance Does your implementation follow the procedures outlined in the Operation Section of [RFC3065bis]? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES 2.2. AS_CONFED Segement Types and AS_PATH Handling Does your implementation recognize the two AS_CONFED Segment Types (AS_CONFED_SET and AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE) defined in [RFC3065bis]? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES Does your implementation use it's Member-AS number in all transactions with peers that are members of the same BGP confederation as the local speaker? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES Does your implementation treat receipt of an AS_PATH attribute containing an autonomous system matching its own AS Confederation Identifier in the same fashion as if it had received a path containing its own AS number? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES Does your implementation treat receipt of an AS_PATH attribute containing an AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET which contains its own Member-AS Number in the same fashion as if it had received a path containing its own AS number? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES 2.3. AS_PATH Modification Does your implementation follow the AS_PATH Modification Rules outlined in [RFC3065bis]? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES 2.4. Error Handling Does your implementation follow the Error Handling procedures outlined in [RFC3065bis]? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES 2.5. Path Selection Does your implementation follow the Path Selection guidelines outlined in [RFC3065bis]? ALCATEL: YES Cisco: YES ECI: YES 2.6. Interoperable Implementations List other implementations that you have tested for Autonomous System Confederatins for BGP [RFC3065bis]: ALCATEL: IOS, JUNOS Cisco: JUNOS, IOS, IOS-XR, Redback, GateD ECI: IOS, JUNOS, Redback 3. References 3.1. Normative References [BGP-4] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4", Internet-Draft, "Work in Progress". [RFC 1965] Traina, P. "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 1965, June 1996. [RFC 3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D. and Scudder, J., "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001. 3.2. Informative References [RFC 1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995. [RFC 1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995. [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 6. Author's Address Danny McPherson Arbor Networks, Inc. Phone: +1 303.470.9257 EMail: danny@arbor.net