OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-09
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (bier WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Psenak , Nagendra Kumar Nainar , IJsbrand Wijnands , Zheng Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2026-01-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-psenak-bier-ospfv3-extensions | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | Huaimo Chen | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2023-04-14 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Gunter Van de Velde | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed |
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-09
Bit Indexed Explicit Replication P. Psenak
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track N. Nainar, Ed.
Expires: 25 July 2026 Oracle
IJ. Wijnands
Individual Contributor
Z. Zhang, Ed.
ZTE Corporation
21 January 2026
OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-09
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow
state. The BIER architecture uses MPLS or other encapsulations to
steer the multicast traffic towards the receivers.
This document describes the OSPFv3 protocol extensions required for
BIER with MPLS encapsulation. Support for other encapsulation types
is outside the scope of this document.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 July 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Flooding of BIER Information in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. BIER Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Flooding scope of BIER Information . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is an architecture
that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain"
without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any multicast
related per-flow state. BIER also does not explicitly require a
tree-building protocol for its operation. A multicast data packet
enters a BIER domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and
leaves the BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers"
(BFERs). The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet. The BIER
header contains a bit-string in which each bit represents exactly one
BFER to which the packet could be forwarded. The set of BFERs to
which the multicast packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by
setting the bits that correspond to those routers in the BIER header.
The BIER architecture requires routers participating in BIER to
exchange BIER related information within a given domain. The BIER
architecture permits link-state routing protocols to perform
distribution of such information. [RFC8444] defines the OSPFv2
protocol extensions to distribute BIER specific information. This
document describes extensions to OSPFv3 to enable it to advertise
BIER specific information in the case where BIER uses MPLS
encapsulation as described in [RFC8296].
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
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. Flooding of BIER Information in OSPFv3
All BIER specific information that a Bit-Forwarding Router (BFR)
needs to advertise to other BFRs is associated with a BFR-Prefix. A
BFR prefix is a unique (within a given BIER domain) routable IPv4 or
IPv6 address that is assigned to each BFR as described in more detail
in [RFC8279].
[RFC8362] defines the format of TLV that allows additional
information to be carried in OSPFv3 LSAs. This section defines the
required Sub-TLVs to carry BIER information that is associated with
the BFR-Prefix. The Sub-TLV defined in this section can be carried
in the OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLVs [RFC8362] listed below:
Inter-Area-Prefix TLV
External-Prefix TLV
Intra-Area-Prefix TLV
2.1. BIER Sub-TLV
A Sub-TLV of the above mentioned Prefix TLVs is defined for
distributing BIER information. The Sub-TLV is called the BIER Sub-
TLV. Multiple BIER Sub-TLVs may be included in any of the above
mentioned Prefix TLV.
The format is the same with the definition in [RFC8444]:
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-domain-ID | MT-ID | BFR-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BAR | IPA | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+- -+
| |
Type: TBD1
Length: The length in octets of the BIER Sub-TLV's value part.
Sub-domain-ID: Unique value identifying the BIER sub-domain within
the BIER domain, as described in [RFC8279]
MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915])that identifies
the topology that is associated with the BIER sub-domain.
BFR-id: A 2-octet field encoding the BFR-id, as documented in
Section 2 of [RFC8279]. Typically, a BFR as an intermediate node
only is not assigned a BFR-id, but still needs to announce and
flood the BIER Sub-TLV and related MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLV for
BIER BIFT construction.
BAR: Single octet BIER specific algorithm used to calculate
underlay paths to reach other BFRs. Values are allocated from the
"BIER Algorithm" registry which is defined in [RFC8401].
IPA: Single octet IGP algorithm to either modify, enhance or
replace the calculation of underlay paths to reach other BFRs as
defined by the BAR value. Values are defined in the "IGP
Algorithm Types" registry in [RFC8665].
Reserved: A 2-octet field, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Each BIER sub-domain MUST be associated with one and only one OSPF
topology that is identified by the MT-ID. If the association between
BIER sub-domain and value of the MT-ID field advertised in the BIER
Sub-TLV by other BFRs is in conflict with the association locally
configured on the receiving router, the received BIER Sub-TLV MUST be
ignored.
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
If the MT-ID value is outside of the values specified in [RFC4915],
the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.
A Prefix-TLV can be used for multiple BIER sub-domains. For each
sub-domain indicated by Sub-domain-ID, there is only one BIER Sub-
TLV. If a BFR advertises the same Sub-domain-ID in multiple BIER
Sub-TLVs, the BFR MUST be treated as if it did not advertise a BIER
Sub-TLV for such sub-domain.
All BFRs MUST detect advertisement of duplicate valid BFR-IDs for a
given Sub-domain-ID. When such duplication is detected by the BFR,
it MUST behave as described in section 5 of [RFC8279].
The supported BAR and IPA algorithms MUST be consistent for all
routers supporting a given BFR sub-domain. A router receiving BIER
Sub-TLV advertisement with a value in BAR or IPA fields which does
not match the locally configured value for a given BFR sub-domain,
MUST report a misconfiguration for such BIER sub-domain and MUST
ignore such BIER Sub-TLV.
Implementations should set the BAR and IPA fields to zero by default.
Other values may be carried in these fields, but the processing is
outside the scope of this document.
When the BIER Sub-TLV is ignored due to any of the reasons specified
in this section, the flooding of the TLV is not affected.
2.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV
The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the BIER Sub-TLV
defined in Section 2.1. The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is used
in order to advertise MPLS specific information used for BIER. It
MAY appear multiple times in the BIER Sub-TLV.
The BIER MPLS Encapsulation 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI | Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|BS Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
Type: Set to TBD2.
Length: 8 octets
Max SI: A 1-octet field encoding the maximum Set Identifier
(section 1 of [RFC8279]), used in the encapsulation for this BIER
sub-domain for the bitstring length indicated by the BS Len field.
Label: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the
first label in the label range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be
ignored by the receiver.
Bit String Length: A 4 bits field indicating the supported
BitString length associated with this BFR-prefix using the
exponential encoding defined in section 2.1.2 [RFC8296]. The set
of values allowed in this field are specified in that section.
Reserved: A 28 bits field, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
The "label range" is the set of labels beginning with the Label
and ending with (Label + (Max SI)). A unique label range is
allocated for each BitString length and Sub-domain-ID. These
labels are used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and
[RFC8296].
The size of the label range is determined by the number of Set
Identifiers (SI) (section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the
network. Each SI maps to a single label in the label range. The
first label is for SI=0, the second label is for SI=1, etc.
If the label associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the
20 bit range, the BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MUST be ignored by
the receiver.
If the BS length is set to a value that does not match any of the
allowed values specified in [RFC8296], the BIER MPLS Encapsulation
Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
If same BS length is repeated in multiple BIER MPLS Encapsulation
Sub-TLV inside the same BIER Sub-TLV, all MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLVs
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Label ranges within all BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs advertised
by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If an overlap is detected, all
BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs advertised by the BFR MUST be
ignored by the receiver.
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
When the BIER Sub-TLV is ignored due to any of the reasons specified
in this section, the flooding of the TLV is not affected..
2.3. Flooding scope of BIER Information
The flooding scope of the Extended LSAs [RFC8362] that is used for
advertising the BIER Sub-TLV is area-local. To allow BIER deployment
in a multi-area environment, OSPFv3 must propagate BIER information
between areas.
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
R1 Area 1 R2 Area 0 R3 Area 2 R4
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
Figure 1: BIER propagation between areas
The following procedure is used in order to propagate BIER related
information between areas:
When an OSPFv3 Area Border Router (ABR) advertises E-Inter-Area-
Prefix-LSA from an intra-area or inter-area prefix to all its
attached areas, it determines whether a BIER Sub-TLV should be
included in this LSA. To achieve this, an OSPFv3 ABR will:
- Examine its best path to the prefix in the source area and find
the advertising router associated with the best path to that
prefix.
- Determine if such advertising router advertised a BIER Sub-TLV
for the prefix. If yes, the ABR will copy the information from
such BIER Sub-TLV when advertising BIER Sub-TLV to each
attached area.
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
In the Figure 1, R1 advertises a prefix 2001:db8:b1e6::1/128 in
Area 1. It also includes BIER Sub-TLV in E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA.
ABR R2 calculates the reachability for prefix
2001:bdb8:b1e6::1/128 inside Area 1 and propagates it to Area 0
using E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA. When doing so, it copies the
entire BIER Sub-TLV (including all its Sub-TLVs) it received from
R1 in Area 1 and includes it in the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA it
generates for the prefix in Area 0. ABR R3 calculates the
reachability for prefix 2001:bdb8:b1e6::1/128 inside Area 0 and
propagates it to Area 2. When doing so, it copies the entire BIER
Sub-TLV (including all its Sub-TLVs) it received from R2 in Area 0
and includes it in E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA it generates for
2001:bdb8:b1e6::1/128 in Area 2.
3. Security Considerations
This document introduces new Sub-TLVs for OSPFv3 Extended-LSAs. It
does not introduce any new security risks to OSPFv3. Existing
security concerns documented in [RFC8362] is applicable for the Sub-
TLVs defined in this document.
It is assumed that both BIER and OSPF layer is under a single
administrative domain. There can be deployments where potential
attackers have access to one or more networks in the OSPFv3 routing
domain. In these deployments, stronger authentication mechanisms
such as those specified in [RFC4552] SHOULD be used.
The Security Considerations section of [RFC8279] discusses the
possibility of performing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack by setting
too many bits in the BitString of a BIER-encapsulated packet.
However, this sort of DoS attack cannot be initiated by modifying the
OSPF BIER advertisements specified in this document. A BFIR decides
which systems are to receive a BIER-encapsulated packet. In making
this decision, it is not influenced by the OSPF control messages.
When creating the encapsulation, the BFIR sets one bit in the
encapsulation for each destination system. The information in the
OSPF BIER advertisements is used to construct the forwarding tables
that map each bit in the encapsulation into a set of next hops for
the host that is identified by that bit, but is not used by the BFIR
to decide which bits to set. Hence an attack on the OSPF control
plane cannot be used to cause this sort of DoS attack.
While a BIER-encapsulated packet is traversing the network, a BFR
that receives a BIER-encapsulated packet with n bits set in its
BitString may have to replicate the packet and forward multiple
copies. However, a given bit will only be set in one copy of the
packet. That means that each transmitted replica of a received
packet has fewer bits set (i.e., is targeted to fewer destinations)
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
than the received packet. This is an essential property of the BIER
forwarding process as defined in [RFC8279]. While a failure of this
process might cause a DoS attack (as discussed in the Security
Considerations of [RFC8279]), such a failure cannot be caused by an
attack on the OSPF control plane.
Implementations MUST assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV defined in
this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for
attackers to crash the OSPFv3 router or routing process. Reception
of malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for
further analysis. Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs SHOULD be
rate-limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed
or otherwise) from overloading the OSPFv3 control plane.
4. IANA Considerations
The document requests two new allocations from the OSPFv3 Extended-
LSA Sub-TLVs registry as defined in [RFC8362] with the range:
4-32767.
BIER Sub-TLV: TBD1
BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD2
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mankamana Mishra, Tony Przygienda,
Huaimo Chen and Greg Shepherd for their review comments.
6. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[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>.
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[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>.
[RFC8401] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z.
Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via
IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8401>.
[RFC8444] Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2
Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)",
RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8444>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Apollo Business Center
821 09 Mlynske nivy 43
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Nagendra Kumar Nainar (editor)
Oracle
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER January 2026
Email: nagendrakumar.nainar@gmail.com
IJsbrand Wijnands
Individual Contributor
1831 Diegem
Belgium
Email: ice@braindump.be
Zheng Zhang (editor)
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Psenak, et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 11]