Network Working Group Bob Thomas Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Expiration Date: April 2006 Loa Andersson Acreo AB October 2005 LDP Implementation Survey Results draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Thomas & Andersson [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 Abstract Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a method for forwarding packets that uses short, fixed-length values carried by packets, called labels, to determine packet nexthops [RFC3031]). 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, by which one LSR informs another of label bindings it has made. One such protocol called LDP [RFC3036] 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 ....................................... 3 1.1 The LDP Survey Form ................................ 3 1.2 LDP Survey Highlights .............................. 4 2 Survey Results for LDP Features .................... 5 3 References ......................................... 8 4 Author Information ................................. 8 Appendix A Full LDP Survey Results ............................ 9 Appendix B LDP Implementation Survey Form ..................... 14 Full Copyright Notice .............................. 22 Thomas & Andersson [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 1. Introduction 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 accommondate 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; 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 Thomas & Andersson [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 against an independent implmented (y); - C responders did not implement the the feature (n); (Ds Eu Fr) indicates optional responses: - D responders thought the RFC3036 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 implementatation 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 RFC3036 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. - 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 Thomas & Andersson [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 - 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 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 Thomas & Andersson [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 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 Thomas & Andersson [Page 6] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 11t 1y 0n No Route 9t 3y 0n No Label Resources 8t 3y 1n Label Resources Avaliable 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 Thomas & Andersson [Page 7] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 3. References [RFC3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001. [RFC3036] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC3036, January 2001. [RFC3037] B. Thomas, E. Gray, "LDP Applicability", RFC3037, January 2001. 4. Author Information Bob Thomas Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Ave. Boxborough MA 01719 Loa Andersson Acreo AB Isafjordsgatan 22 Kista, Sweden Thomas & Andersson [Page 8] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 Trillium, An Intel Company Redback Networks Riverstone Networks Vivace Networks, Inc. Wipro Technologies ======================================================================= 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 [Page 9] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 ======================================================================= C. LDP Feature Survey. For each features 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 RFC3036 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 TCP MD5 Option 2.9 3t 1y 8n(1u 1r 1x) Thomas & Andersson [Page 10] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 1t 5y 6n(2r) Experimental TLV 3.6.2 Thomas & Andersson [Page 11] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 Avaliable 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 PDUMax 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 7t 5y 0n Unsupported Addr Family 3.4.1.1, 3.5.5.1 Thomas & Andersson [Page 12] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 7t 5y 0n Internal Error 3.5.1.2.7 Thomas & Andersson [Page 13] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 RFC3036. 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: ======================================================================= B. LDP Implementation Status, Availability, Origin Please check [x] the boxes that apply. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas & Andersson [Page 14] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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: ======================================================================= C. LDP Feature Survey. For each features 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 Thomas & Andersson [Page 15] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- | | Status | | (one of t, y, n, -; if n, Feature | RFC3036 Section(s) | optionally 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 | ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 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 | | Thomas & Andersson [Page 16] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 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 | ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 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 | Thomas & Andersson [Page 17] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 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 | | ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 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 | Thomas & Andersson [Page 18] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 | ==================+=============================+========================= 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 | ----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- Thomas & Andersson [Page 19] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 | ==================+=============================+========================= 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 | ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- Thomas & Andersson [Page 20] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 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 | | ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 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 [Page 21] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt October 2005 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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. Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents except in the case where such document is the product of a joint development effort between the IETF and another standards development organization or the document is a republication of the work of another standards organization. Such exceptions must be approved on an individual basis by the IAB. 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 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. Thomas & Andersson [Page 22]