GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc9356



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Talaulikar, Ed. Request for Comments: 9356 P. Psenak Updates: 9085 Cisco Systems Category: Standards Track January 2023 ISSN: 2070-1721

     Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF

Abstract

 There are deployments where the Layer 3 (L3) interface on which OSPF
 operates is a Layer 2 (L2) interface bundle.  Existing OSPF
 advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the L3
 interface.  If entities external to OSPF wish to control traffic
 flows on the individual physical links that comprise the L2 interface
 bundle, link attribute information for the bundle members is
 required.
 This document defines the protocol extensions for OSPF to advertise
 the link attributes of L2 bundle members.  The document also
 specifies the advertisement of these OSPF extensions via the Border
 Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) and thereby updates RFC 9085.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9356.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
 Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
 in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction
   1.1.  Requirements Language
 2.  L2 Bundle Member Attributes
 3.  BGP-LS Advertisement
 4.  IANA Considerations
 5.  Operational Considerations
 6.  Security Considerations
 7.  References
   7.1.  Normative References
   7.2.  Informative References
 Acknowledgements
 Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

 There are deployments where the L3 interface on which an OSPF
 adjacency is established is a L2 interface bundle, for instance, a
 Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX].  This reduces the number
 of adjacencies that need to be maintained by the OSPF protocol in
 cases where there are parallel links between the neighbors.  Entities
 external to OSPF such as Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655]
 may wish to control traffic flows on individual L2 member links of
 the underlying bundle interface (e.g., LAG).  To do so, link
 attribute information for individual bundle members is required.  The
 protocol extensions defined in this document provide the means to
 advertise this information.
 This document defines sub-TLVs to advertise link attribute
 information for each of the L2 bundle members that comprise the L3
 interface on which OSPF operates.  Similar capabilities were
 introduced for IS-IS in [RFC8668].
 [RFC8665] and [RFC8666] introduced the Adjacency Segment Identifier
 (Adj-SID) link attribute for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, respectively, which
 can be used as an instruction to forward traffic over a specific link
 [RFC8402].  This document enables the advertisement of the Adj-SIDs
 using the same Adj-SID sub-TLV at the granularity level of each L2
 bundle member link so that traffic may be steered over that specific
 member link.
 Note that the advertisements at the L2 bundle member link level
 defined in this document are intended to be provided to entities
 external to OSPF and do not alter or change the OSPF route
 computation.  The following items are intentionally not defined in
 and are outside the scope of this document:
  • What link attributes will be advertised. This is determined by

the needs of the external entities.

  • A minimum or default set of link attributes.
  • How these attributes are configured.
  • How the advertisements are used.
  • What impact the use of these advertisements may have on traffic

flow in the network.

  • How the advertisements are passed to external entities.
 BGP Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] was extended for the advertisement
 of L2 bundle members and their attributes in [RFC9085], which covered
 only IS-IS.  This document updates [RFC9085] by specifying the
 advertisement from OSPF (refer to Section 3).

1.1. Requirements Language

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
 capitals, as shown here.

2. L2 Bundle Member Attributes

 A new L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV is introduced to advertise
 L2 bundle member attributes in both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.  In the case
 of OSPFv2, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended
 Link TLV that is used to describe link attributes via the OSPFv2
 Extended Link Opaque LSA (Link State Advertisement) [RFC7684].  In
 the case of OSPFv3, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the
 Router-Link TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362].
 When the OSPF adjacency is associated with an L2 bundle interface,
 this sub-TLV is used to advertise the underlying L2 bundle member
 links along with their respective link attributes.  The inclusion of
 this information implies that the identified link is a member of the
 L2 bundle associated with an OSPF L3 link and that the member link is
 operationally up.  Therefore, advertisements of member links MUST NOT
 be done when the member link becomes operationally down or is no
 longer a member of the identified L2 bundle.
 The advertisement of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV may be
 asymmetric for an OSPF link, depending on the underlying L2
 connectivity, i.e., advertised by the router on only one end.
 The L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV has the following format:
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |               Type            |          Length               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                   L2 Bundle Member Descriptor                 |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |           Member Link Attribute sub-TLVs (variable)          //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          Figure 1: L2 Bundle Member Attributes Sub-TLV Format
 Where:
 Type:  24 for OSPFv2 and 29 for OSPFv3
 Length:  The total length (in octets) of the value portion of the TLV
    including nested sub-TLVs.
 L2 Bundle Member Descriptor:  A 4-octet link-local identifier for the
    member link.  This identifier is described as "link local
    identifier" in [RFC4202] and used as "Local Interface ID" in
    [RFC8510].
 Link attributes for L2 bundle member links are advertised as sub-TLVs
 of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
 In the case of OSPFv2, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares
 the sub-TLV space of the Extended Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the
 Extended Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the
 member link.  Table 1 lists sub-TLVs and their applicability for L2
 bundle member links.  The sub-TLVs that are not applicable MUST NOT
 be used as sub-TLVs for the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
 Specifications that introduce new sub-TLVs of the Extended Link TLV
 MUST indicate their applicability to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
 sub-TLV.  Typically, attributes that have L3 semantics would not be
 applicable, but L2 attributes would apply.  An implementation MUST
 ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context
 of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
 +=======+======================================+===============+
 | Value | Description                          | Applicability |
 +=======+======================================+===============+
 | 1     | SID/Label                            |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 2     | Adj-SID                              |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 3     | LAN Adj-SID/Label                    |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 4     | Network-to-Router Metric             |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 5     | RTM Capability                       |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 6     | OSPFv2 Link MSD                      |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 7     | Graceful-Link-Shutdown               |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 8     | Remote IPv4 Address                  |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 9     | Local/Remote Interface ID            |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 10    | Application-Specific Link Attributes |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 11    | Shared Risk Link Group               |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 12    | Unidirectional Link Delay            |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 13    | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay    |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 14    | Unidirectional Delay Variation       |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 15    | Unidirectional Link Loss             |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 16    | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth    |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 17    | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth   |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 18    | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth    |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 19    | Administrative Group                 |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 20    | Extended Administrative Group        |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 22    | TE Metric                            |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 23    | Maximum Link Bandwidth               |       Y       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 24    | L2 Bundle Member Attributes          |       N       |
 +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   Table 1: Applicability of OSPFv2 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for
                        L2 Bundle Members
 Applicability:
 Y:   This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-
      TLV.
 N:   This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
      sub-TLV.
 In the case of OSPFv3, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares
 the sub-TLV space of the Router-Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the
 Router-Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the member
 link.  Table 2 lists sub-TLVs that are applicable to the Router-Link
 TLV and their applicability for L2 bundle member links.  The sub-TLVs
 that are not applicable MUST NOT be used as sub-TLVs for the L2
 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.  Specifications that introduce new
 sub-TLVs of the Router-Link TLV MUST indicate their applicability to
 the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.  An implementation MUST
 ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context
 of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
 +=======+=========================================+===============+
 | Value | Description                             | Applicability |
 +=======+=========================================+===============+
 | 1     | IPv6-Forwarding-Address                 |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 2     | IPv4-Forwarding-Address                 |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 3     | Route-Tag                               |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 4     | Prefix SID                              |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 5     | Adj-SID                                 |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 6     | LAN Adj-SID                             |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 7     | SID/Label                               |       N       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 8     | Graceful-Link-Shutdown                  |       N       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 9     | OSPFv3 Link MSD                         |       N       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 11    | Application-Specific Link Attributes    |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 12    | Shared Risk Link Group                  |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 13    | Unidirectional Link Delay               |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 14    | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay       |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 15    | Unidirectional Delay Variation          |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 16    | Unidirectional Link Loss                |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 17    | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth       |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 18    | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth      |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 19    | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth       |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 20    | Administrative Group                    |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 21    | Extended Administrative Group           |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 22    | TE Metric                               |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 23    | Maximum Link Bandwidth                  |       Y       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 24    | Local Interface IPv6 Address            |       N       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 25    | Remote Interface IPv6 Address           |       N       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 26    | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 27    | Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID            |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 28    | Prefix Source Router Address            |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 29    | L2 Bundle Member Attributes             |       N       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
 | 33    | OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric     |       X       |
 +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
   Table 2: Applicability of OSPFv3 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for L2
                            Bundle Members
 Applicability:
 Y:   This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-
      TLV.
 N:   This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
      sub-TLV.
 X:   This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT appear
      in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.

3. BGP-LS Advertisement

 The BGP-LS extensions for the advertisement of L2 bundle members and
 their attributes were specified in [RFC9085].  Using the OSPF L2
 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV defined in this document, the L2
 bundle member information can now be advertised from OSPF into BGP-LS
 on the same lines as discussed for IS-IS in Section 2.2.3 of
 [RFC9085].

4. IANA Considerations

 IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv2 Extended
 Link TLV Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2
 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry:
 Value:  24
 Designation:  L2 Bundle Member Attributes
 IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv3 Extended-
 LSA Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v3
 (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry:
 Value:  29
 Description:  L2 Bundle Member Attributes
 IANA has also introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv2
 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry.  The "L2BM" column indicates
 applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The
 initial allocations (Y/N) for this column are indicated in Table 1.
 The following explanatory note has been added to the registry:
 |  The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
 |  Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The options for the "L2BM" column are:
 |  
 |  Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
 |  sub-TLV.
 |  
 |  N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
 |  Attributes sub-TLV.
 Similarly, IANA has introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv3
 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.  The "L2BM" column indicates
 applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The
 initial allocations (Y/N/X) for this column are indicated in Table 2.
 The following explanatory note has been added to the registry:
 |  The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
 |  Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The options for the "L2BM" column are:
 |  
 |  Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
 |  sub-TLV.
 |  
 |  N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
 |  Attributes sub-TLV.
 |  
 |  X - This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT
 |  appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
 Future allocations in these two registries are required to indicate
 the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member
 Attributes sub-TLV.  IANA has added this document as a reference for
 both registries.

5. Operational Considerations

 Implementations MUST NOT enable the advertisement of L2 bundle member
 links and their attributes in OSPF LSAs by default and MUST provide a
 configuration option to enable their advertisement on specific links.
 [RFC9129] specifies the base YANG data model for OSPF.  The required
 configuration and operational elements for this feature are expected
 to be introduced as augmentation to this base YANG data model for
 OSPF.

6. Security Considerations

 The OSPF protocol has supported the advertisement of link attribute
 information, including link identifiers, for many years.  The
 advertisements defined in this document are identical to the existing
 advertisements defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203], [RFC5329], [RFC7471],
 [RFC8665], and [RFC8666], but they are associated with L2 links that
 are part of a bundle interface on which the OSPF protocol operates.
 Therefore, the security considerations of these documents are
 applicable, and there are no new security issues introduced by the
 extensions in this document.
 As always, if the protocol is used in an environment where
 unauthorized access to the physical links on which OSPF packets are
 sent occurs, then attacks are possible.  The use of authentication as
 defined in [RFC5709], [RFC7474], [RFC4552], and [RFC7166] is
 recommended for preventing such attacks.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [IEEE802.1AX]
            IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
            Networks--Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX,
            DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020,
            <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034>.
 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC4202]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
            in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
            (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
 [RFC7684]  Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
            Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
            Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
            2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
            2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
            May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
 [RFC8362]  Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
            F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
            Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
            2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
 [RFC8665]  Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
            H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
            Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
 [RFC8666]  Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
            for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
            December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
 [RFC9085]  Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
            H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
            (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.

7.2. Informative References

 [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
            (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
 [RFC4203]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
            Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
            (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
 [RFC4552]  Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
            for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
 [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
            Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
 [RFC5329]  Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
            "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
            RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
 [RFC5709]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
            Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
            Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
            2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
 [RFC7166]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
            Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
 [RFC7471]  Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
            Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
            Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
 [RFC7474]  Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
            "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
            Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
 [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
            S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
            Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
 [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
            Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
            Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
            July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
 [RFC8510]  Psenak, P., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Henderickx, W., and P.
            Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling (LLS)
            Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement",
            RFC 8510, DOI 10.17487/RFC8510, January 2019,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8510>.
 [RFC8668]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
            M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
            Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
            December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.
 [RFC9129]  Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,
            "YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol", RFC 9129,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC9129, October 2022,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9129>.

Acknowledgements

 This document leverages similar work done for IS-IS, and the authors
 of this document would like to acknowledge the contributions of the
 authors of [RFC8668].
 The authors would like to thank Anoop Ghanwani, Paul Kyzivat, Dan
 Romascanu, and Russ Mundy for their review and feedback on this
 document.  The authors would also like to thank Acee Lindem for his
 detailed shepherd review of this document.  The authors would also
 like to thank John Scudder for his AD review and the discussion
 related to the applicability of TLVs/sub-TLVs to the L2 Bundle Member
 Attributes sub-TLV.

Authors' Addresses

 Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
 Cisco Systems
 India
 Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
 Peter Psenak
 Cisco Systems
 Apollo Business Center
 Mlynske nivy 43
 821 09 Bratislava
 Slovakia
 Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
/home/gen.uk/domains/wiki.gen.uk/public_html/data/pages/rfc/rfc9356.txt · Last modified: 2023/01/25 19:28 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki