Functionality: Is your implementation compatible with the use of the Path Identifier as described in this section?
RFC2119: Not applicable
| Implementation | Support | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulus | Yes | |
| Cisco | Yes | |
| Exa | Yes | |
| Juniper | Yes | |
| ALU | Yes | |
| CZ.NIC | Yes | |
| freeRouter | Yes |
Functionality: Explain how Path Identifiers are assigned in your implementation.
RFC2119: Not applicable
| Implementation | Comments |
|---|---|
| Cumulus | quagga is RX only for now so this is not an issue |
| Cisco | Each net has unique path-id per paths under it. The path ids that are withdrawn can get assigned to the newer paths. |
| Exa | By the user |
| Juniper | Incrementally assign an id based on the N+1 of the max(N) of the path ids already assigned. |
| ALU | Path IDs are per address family. Every new advertised path uses the next available path ID (in sequential order) for the address family. |
| CZ.NIC | Each route source (like add_path-unaware BGP peer) has allocated fixed path id. |
| freeRouter | Incrementally assigned for each path |
Functionality: "...the Path Identifier MUST be assigned in such a way that the BGP speaker is able to use the (prefix, path identifier) to uniquely identify a path advertised to a neighbor."
Question: Can your implementation uniquely identify an advertised path based on the (prefix, path identifier) pair?
| Implementation | Support | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulus | Yes | |
| Cisco | Yes | |
| Exa | Other | This is left to the user of the application to do. |
| Juniper | Yes | |
| ALU | Yes | |
| CZ.NIC | Yes | |
| freeRouter | Yes |
Functionality: "A BGP speaker that re-advertises a route MUST generate its own Path Identifier to be associated with the re-advertised route."
Question: Does your implementation generate a new Path Identifier when re-advertising a route?
| Implementation | Support | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulus | Other | quagga does not support TX yet |
| Cisco | Yes | |
| Exa | Other | ExaBGP does not re-advertise routes |
| Juniper | Yes | |
| ALU | Yes | |
| CZ.NIC | Other | New path_id is allocated for each unique path_id received through add_path-aware BGP session. |
| freeRouter | Yes |
Functionality: "A BGP speaker that receives a route SHOULD NOT assume that the identifier carries any particular semantics; it SHOULD be treated as an opaque value."
Question: Does your implementation treat a received Path Identifier as an opaque value?
RFC2119: SHOULD NOT
| Implementation | Support | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulus | Yes | |
| Cisco | Yes | |
| Exa | Yes | |
| Juniper | Yes | |
| ALU | Yes | |
| CZ.NIC | Yes | |
| freeRouter | Yes |
The content of this page was last updated on 2015-07-26. It was migrated from the old Trac wiki on 2023-03-12.