Skip to main content

IGP Flexible Algorithm
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-25

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Authors Peter Psenak , Shraddha Hegde , Clarence Filsfils , Ketan Talaulikar , Arkadiy Gulko
Last updated 2022-10-14 (Latest revision 2022-10-06)
Replaces draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo, draft-ppsenak-ospf-sr-flex-algo
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Acee Lindem
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2021-07-06
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD John Scudder
Send notices to Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, acee@cisco.com, jgs@juniper.net
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state Waiting on Authors
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Details
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-25
Network Working Group                                     P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Hegde
Expires: 9 April 2023                             Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                           K. Talaulikar
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                                A. Gulko
                                                            Edward Jones
                                                          6 October 2022

                         IGP Flexible Algorithm
                      draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-25

Abstract

   IGP protocols historically compute best paths over the network based
   on the IGP metric assigned to the links.  Many network deployments
   use RSVP-TE based or Segment Routing based Traffic Engineering to
   steer traffic over a path that is computed using different metrics or
   constraints than the shortest IGP path.  This document specifies a
   solution that allows IGPs themselves to compute constraint-based
   paths over the network.  This document also specifies a way of using
   Segment Routing (SR) Prefix-SIDs and SRv6 locators to steer packets
   along the constraint-based paths.

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 9 April 2023.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Flexible Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV  . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Common Handling of Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV  . .  10
   6.  Sub-TLVs of IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV  . .  11
     6.2.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group
           Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group
           Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.4.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV . . . .  14
     6.5.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV . . . . . .  16
   7.  Sub-TLVs of OSPF FAD TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV . . .  17
     7.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group
           Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.3.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group
           Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.4.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV  . . . .  19
     7.5.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV  . . . . . .  20
   8.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV  . . . . . . .  21
   9.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV . . . . . . . .  22
   10. OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Reachability Advertisement . . .  23
     10.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR LSA  . . . . . . . . . .  23
       10.1.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLV  . . . . . . . .  25
     10.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV  . . . . . .  26
   11. Advertisement of Node Participation in a Flex-Algorithm . . .  28

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

     11.1.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment
            Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.2.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Other
            Data-planes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   12. Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm . . . . .  29
   13. Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     13.1.  Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations . . . . . . .  31
   14. Flex-Algorithm and Forwarding Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     14.1.  Segment Routing MPLS Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . .  34
     14.2.  SRv6 Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     14.3.  Other Data-planes' Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . .  36
   15. Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     15.1.  Inter-area Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     15.2.  Usage of SRLG Exclude Rule with Flex-Algorithm . . . . .  37
     15.3.  Max-metric consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     15.4.  FAD Definition and Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     15.5.  Number of Flex-Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   16. Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     18.1.  IGP IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       18.1.1.  IGP Algorithm Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       18.1.2.  IGP Metric-Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     18.2.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Registry . . . . . .  40
     18.3.  IS-IS IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       18.3.1.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV . . .  40
       18.3.2.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix
               Reachability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
       18.3.3.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition
               Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     18.4.  OSPF IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       18.4.1.  OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry . . . . .  42
       18.4.2.  OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . .  42
       18.4.3.  OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       18.4.4.  OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Bits . . . . . . .  43
       18.4.5.  OSPFv2 Opaque LSA Option Types . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       18.4.6.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLVs . . . . . . . .  43
       18.4.7.  OSPFv2 Inter-Area ASBR Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . .  44
       18.4.8.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLV
               Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
       18.4.9.  Link Attribute Applications Registry . . . . . . . .  45
   19. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
   20. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
     20.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
     20.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

1.  Introduction

   An IGP-computed path based on the shortest IGP metric is often
   replaced by a traffic-engineered path due to requirements which are
   not reflected by the IGP metric.  Some networks engineer the IGP
   metric assignments in a way that the IGP metric reflects the link
   bandwidth or delay.  If, for example, the IGP metric reflects the
   bandwidth on the link and user traffic is delay sensitive, the best
   IGP path may not reflect the best path from such a user's
   perspective.

   To overcome this limitation, various sorts of traffic engineering
   have been deployed, including RSVP-TE and SR-TE, in which case the TE
   component is responsible for computing paths based on additional
   metrics and/or constraints.  Such paths need to be installed in the
   forwarding tables in addition to, or as a replacement for, the
   original paths computed by IGPs.  Tunnels are often used to represent
   the engineered paths and mechanisms like the one described in
   [RFC3906] are used to replace the original IGP paths with such tunnel
   paths.

   This document specifies a set of extensions to IS-IS, OSPFv2, and
   OSPFv3 that enable a router to advertise TLVs that (a) identify
   calculation-type, (b) specify a metric-type, and (c) describe a set
   of constraints on the topology, that are to be used to compute the
   best paths along the constrained topology.  A given combination of
   calculation-type, metric-type, and constraints is known as a
   "Flexible Algorithm Definition".  A router that sends such a set of
   TLVs also assigns a Flex-Algorithm value to the specified combination
   of calculation-type, metric-type, and constraints.

   This document also specifies a way for a router to use IGPs to
   associate one or more "Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane (SR-
   MPLS)" Prefix-SIDs [RFC8660], or "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)"
   locators [RFC8986] with a particular Flex-Algorithm.  Each such
   Prefix-SID or SRv6 locator then represents a path that is computed
   according to the identified Flex-Algorithm.  In SRv6 it is the
   locator, not the SID, that holds the binding to the algorithm.

2.  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.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

3.  Terminology

   This section defines terms that are often used in this document.

   Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) - the set consisting of (a)
   calculation-type, (b) metric-type, and (c) a set of constraints.

   Flex-Algorithm - a numeric identifier in the range 128-255 that is
   associated via configuration with the Flexible Algorithm Definition.

   Local Flexible Algorithm Definition - Flexible Algorithm Definition
   defined locally on the node.

   Remote Flexible Algorithm Definition - Flexible Algorithm Definition
   received from other nodes via IGP flooding.

   Flexible Algorithm Participation - per data-plane configuration state
   that expresses whether the node is participating in a particular
   Flexible Algorithm.  Not all routers in a given network need to
   participate in a given Flexible Algorithm.  The Flexible Algorithm(s)
   a given router participates in is determined by configuration.

   IGP Algorithm - value from the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry defined
   under "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registry
   grouping.  IGP Algorithms represents the triplet (calculation-type,
   metric-type, constraints), where the second and third elements of the
   triple MAY be unspecified.

   ABR - Area Border Router.  In IS-IS terminology it is also known as
   L1/L2 router.

   ASBR - Autonomous System Border Router.

4.  Flexible Algorithm

   Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over a
   network.  Some networks are deployed as multiple planes.  A simple
   form of constraint may be to use a particular plane.  A more
   sophisticated form of constraint can include some extended metric as
   described in [RFC8570].  Constraints which restrict paths to links
   with specific affinities or avoid links with specific affinities are
   also possible.  Combinations of these are also possible.

   To provide maximum flexibility, a mechanism is provided that allows a
   router to (a) identify a particular calculation-type and (b) metric-
   type, (c) describe a particular set of constraints, and (d) assign a
   numeric identifier, referred to as Flex-Algorithm, to the combination
   of that calculation-type, metric-type, and those constraints.  The

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   mapping between the Flex-Algorithm and its meaning is flexible and
   defined by the user.  As long as all routers in the domain have a
   common understanding as to what a particular Flex-Algorithm
   represents, the resulting routing computation is consistent and
   traffic is not subject to any looping.

   The set consisting of (a) calculation-type, (b) metric-type, and (c)
   a set of constraints is referred to as a Flexible Algorithm
   Definition.

   Flex-Algorithm is a numeric identifier in the range 128-255 that is
   associated via configuration with the Flexible Algorithm Definition.

   The IANA "IGP Algorithm Types" registry defines the set of values for
   IGP Algorithms.  The following values area allocated by IANA from
   this registry for Flex-Algorithms:

      128-255 - Flex-Algorithms

5.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement

   To guarantee loop-free forwarding for paths computed for a particular
   Flex-Algorithm, all routers that (a) are configured to participate in
   a particular Flex-Algorithm, and (b) are in the same Flex-Algorithm
   definition advertisement scope MUST agree on the definition of the
   Flex-Algorithm.  The following procedures ensure this condition is
   fulfilled.

5.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV (FAD Sub-TLV) is used
   to advertise the definition of the Flex-Algorithm.

   The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV is advertised as a Sub-TLV of the IS-IS Router
   Capability TLV-242 that is defined in [RFC7981].

   IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV has the following format:

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

    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     |Flex-Algorithm |  Metric-Type  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Calc-Type   |    Priority   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Sub-TLVs                             |
   +                                                               +
   |                            ...                                |

   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

      Type: 26

      Length: variable number of octets, dependent on the included Sub-
      TLVs

      Flex-Algorithm: Flexible Algorithm number.  Single octet value
      between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Metric-Type: Type of metric from the "IGP Metric-Type Registry"
      (Section 18.1.2) to be used during the calculation.  The following
      values are defined:

         0: IGP Metric

         1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC8570],
         section 4.2, encoded as application specific link attribute as
         specified in [RFC8919] and Section 12 of this document.

         2: Traffic Engineering Default Metric as defined in [RFC5305],
         section 3.7, encoded as application specific link attribute as
         specified in [RFC8919] and Section 12 of this document.

      Calc-Type: calculation-type, value from 0 to 127 inclusive from
      the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry defined under "Interior Gateway
      Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registries.  IGP algorithms in the
      range of 0-127 have a defined triplet (calculation-type, metric-
      type, constraints).  When used to specify the calculation-type in
      the FAD Sub-TLV, only the calculation-type defined for the
      specified IGP Algorithm is used.  The Metric/Constraints MUST NOT
      be inherited.  If the required calculation-type is Shortest Path
      First, the value 0 MUST appear in this field.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Priority: Value between 0 and 255 inclusive that specifies the
      priority of the advertisement.  Numerically greater values are
      preferred.  Usage fo the priority is described in Section 5.3.

      Sub-TLVs - optional sub-TLVs.

   The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV MAY be advertised in an LSP of any number.  IS-
   IS router MAY advertise more than one IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV for a given
   Flexible Algorithm (see Section 6).

   The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV has an area scope.  The Router Capability TLV
   in which the FAD Sub-TLV is present MUST have the S-bit clear.

   An IS-IS L1/L2 router MAY be configured to re-generate the winning
   FAD from level 2, without any modification to it, to the level 1
   area.  The re-generation of the FAD Sub-TLV from level 2 to level 1
   is determined by the L1/L2 router, not by the originator of the FAD
   advertisement in the level 2.  In such a case, the re-generated FAD
   Sub-TLV will be advertised in the level 1 Router Capability TLV
   originated by the L1/L2 router.

   An L1/L2 router MUST NOT re-generate any FAD Sub-TLV from level 1 to
   level 2.

5.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

   The OSPF FAD TLV is advertised as a top-level TLV of the Router
   Information (RI) LSA that is defined in [RFC7770].

   The OSPF FAD 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            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Flex-Algorithm |   Metric-Type |   Calc-Type   |    Priority   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Sub-TLVs                           |
     +                                                               +
     |                               ...                             |

     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Type: 16

      Length: variable number of octets, dependent on the included Sub-
      TLVs

      Flex-Algorithm: Flexible Algorithm number.  Single octet value
      between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Metric-Type: Type of metric from the "IGP Metric-Type Registry"
      (Section 18.1.2) to be used during the calculation.  The following
      values are defined:

         0: IGP Metric

         1: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7471],
         section 4.2, encoded as application specific link attribute as
         specified in [RFC8920] and Section 12 of this document.

         2: Traffic Engineering metric as defined in [RFC3630], section
         2.5.5, encoded as application specific link attribute as
         specified in [RFC8920] and Section 12 of this document.

      Calc-Type: as described in Section 5.1

      Priority: as described in Section 5.1

      Sub-TLVs - optional sub-TLVs.

   When multiple OSPF FAD TLVs, for the same Flexible Algorithm, are
   received from a given router, the receiver MUST use the first
   occurrence of the TLV in the Router Information LSA.  If the OSPF FAD
   TLV, for the same Flex-Algorithm, appears in multiple Router
   Information LSAs that have different flooding scopes, the OSPF FAD
   TLV in the Router Information LSA with the area-scoped flooding scope
   MUST be used.  If the OSPF FAD TLV, for the same algorithm, appears
   in multiple Router Information LSAs that have the same flooding
   scope, the OSPF FAD TLV in the Router Information (RI) LSA with the
   numerically smallest Instance ID MUST be used and subsequent
   instances of the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored.

   The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined opaque flooding
   scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)).  For the purpose of
   OSPF FAD TLV advertisement, area-scoped flooding is REQUIRED.  The
   Autonomous System flooding scope SHOULD NOT be used unless local
   configuration policy on the originating router indicates domain wide
   flooding.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

5.3.  Common Handling of Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

   This section describes the protocol-independent handling of the FAD
   TLV (OSPF) or FAD Sub-TLV (IS-IS).  We will refer to it as FAD TLV in
   this section, even though in the case of IS-IS it is a Sub-TLV.

   The value of the Flex-Algorithm MUST be between 128 and 255
   inclusive.  If it is not, the FAD TLV MUST be ignored.

   Only a subset of the routers participating in the particular Flex-
   Algorithm need to advertise the definition of the Flex-Algorithm.

   Every router, that is configured to participate in a particular Flex-
   Algorithm, MUST select the Flex-Algorithm definition based on the
   following ordered rules.  This allows for the consistent Flex-
   Algorithm definition selection in cases where different routers
   advertise different definitions for a given Flex-Algorithm:

      1.  From the advertisements of the FAD in the area (including both
      locally generated advertisements and received advertisements)
      select the one(s) with the numerically greatest priority value.

      2.  If there are multiple advertisements of the FAD with the same
      numerically greatest priority, select the one that is originated
      from the router with the numerically greatest System-ID, in the
      case of IS-IS, or Router ID, in the case of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
      For IS-IS, the System-ID is described in [ISO10589].  For OSPFv2
      and OSPFv3, standard Router ID is described in [RFC2328] and
      [RFC5340] respectively.

   The FAD selected according to these rules is also known as the
   "winning FAD".

   A router that is not configured to participate in a particular Flex-
   Algorithm MUST ignore FAD Sub-TLVs advertisements for such Flex-
   Algorithm.

   A router that is not participating in a particular Flex-Algorithm MAY
   advertise FAD for such Flex-Algorithm.  Receiving routers MUST
   consider a received FAD advertisement regardless of the Flex-
   Algorithm participation of that FAD advertisement's originator.

   Any change in the Flex-Algorithm definition may result in temporary
   disruption of traffic that is forwarded based on such Flex-Algorithm
   paths.  The impact is similar to any other event that requires
   network-wide convergence.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   If a node is configured to participate in a particular Flexible
   Algorithm, but there is no valid Flex-Algorithm definition available
   for it, or the selected Flex-Algorithm definition includes
   calculation-type, metric-type, constraint, flag, or Sub-TLV that is
   not supported by the node, it MUST stop participating in such
   Flexible Algorithm.  That implies that it MUST NOT announce
   participation for such Flexible Algorithm as specified in Section 11
   and it MUST remove any forwarding state associated with it.

   Flex-Algorithm definition is topology independent.  It applies to all
   topologies that a router participates in.

6.  Sub-TLVs of IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV

   One of the limitations of IS-IS [ISO10589] is that the length of a
   TLV/sub-TLV is limited to a maximum of 255 octets.  For the FAD sub-
   TLV, there are a number of sub-sub-TLVs (defined below) which are
   supported.  For a given Flex-Algorithm, it is possible that the total
   number of octets required to completely define a FAD exceeds the
   maximum length supported by a single FAD sub-TLV.  In such cases, the
   FAD MAY be split into multiple such sub-TLVs and the content of the
   multiple FAD sub-TLVs combined to provide a complete FAD for the
   Flex-Algorithm.  In such a case, the fixed portion of the FAD (see
   Section 5.1) MUST be identical in all FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-
   Algorithm from a given IS.  In case the fixed portion of such FAD
   Sub-TLVs differ, the values in the fixed portion in the FAD sub-TLV
   in the first occurrence in the lowest numbered LSP from a given IS
   MUST be used.

   Any specification that introduces a new IS-IS FAD sub-sub-TLV MUST
   specify whether the FAD sub-TLV may appear multiple times in the set
   of FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS and how to
   handle them if multiple are allowed.

6.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm definition can specify 'colors' that are used
   by the operator to exclude links during the Flex-Algorithm path
   computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV is used to
   advertise the exclude rule that is used during the Flex-Algorithm
   path calculation as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV (FAEAG Sub-
   TLV) is a Sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  It has the following
   format:

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

    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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 1

      Length: variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
      Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
      defined in [RFC7308].

   The IS-IS FAEAG Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in a single
   IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  If it appears more than once, the IS-IS FAD Sub-
   TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   The IS-IS FAEAG Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in the set of
   FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS.  If it
   appears more than once in such a set, the IS-IS FAEAG Sub-TLV in the
   first occurrence in the lowest numbered LSP from a given IS MUST be
   used and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

6.2.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm definition can specify 'colors' that are used
   by the operator to include links during the Flex-Algorithm path
   computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV is used
   to advertise the include-any rule that is used during the Flex-
   Algorithm path calculation as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV is a
   Sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  It has the following format:

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

    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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 2

      Length: variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
      Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
      defined in [RFC7308].

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in a single IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  If it appears
   more than once, the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV MUST be ignored by the
   receiver.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in the set of FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-
   Algorithm from a given IS.  If it appears more than once in such a
   set, the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV in
   the first occurrence in the lowest numbered LSP from a given IS MUST
   be used and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

6.3.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm definition can specify 'colors' that are used
   by the operator to include links during the Flex-Algorithm path
   computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV is used
   to advertise the include-all rule that is used during the Flex-
   Algorithm path calculation as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV is is a
   Sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  It has the following format:

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

    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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 3

      Length: variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
      Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
      defined in [RFC7308].

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in a single IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  If it appears
   more than once, the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV MUST be ignored by the
   receiver.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in the set of FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-
   Algorithm from a given IS.  If it appears more than once in such a
   set, the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV in
   the first occurrence in the lowest numbered LSP from a given IS MUST
   be used and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

6.4.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV (FADF Sub-TLV)
   is a Sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  It 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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Flags                             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Type: 4

      Length: variable, number of octets of the Flags field

      Flags:

                    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
                   |M| | |          ...
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...

         M-flag: when set, the Flex-Algorithm specific prefix metric
         MUST be used for inter-area and external prefix calculation.
         This flag is not applicable to prefixes advertised as SRv6
         locators.

   A new IANA "IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Registry" is
   defined for allocation of bits in the Flags field - see Section 18.2.

   Bits are defined/sent starting with Bit 0 defined above.  Additional
   bit definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD be assigned
   in ascending bit order so as to minimize the number of bits that will
   need to be transmitted.

   Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0.

   Bits that are not transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
   on receipt.

   The IS-IS FADF Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in a single IS-
   IS FAD Sub-TLV.  If it appears more than once, the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV
   MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   The IS-IS FADF Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in the set of
   FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS.  If it
   appears more than once in such a set, the IS-IS FADF Sub-TLV in the
   first occurrence in the lowest numbered LSP from a given IS MUST be
   used and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

   If the IS-IS FADF Sub-TLV is not present inside the IS-IS FAD Sub-
   TLV, all the bits are assumed to be set to 0.

   If a node is configured to participate in a particular Flexible
   Algorithm, but the selected Flex-Algorithm definition includes a bit
   in the IS-IS FADF Sub-TLV that is not supported by the node, it MUST
   stop participating in such Flexible Algorithm.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   New flag bits may be defined in the future.  Implementations MUST
   check all advertised flag bits in the received IS-IS FADF Sub-TLV -
   not just the subset currently defined.

   M-flag MUST not be used when calculating prefix reachability for SRv6
   Locator prefix.

6.5.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm definition can specify Shared Risk Link Groups
   (SRLGs) that the operator wants to exclude during the Flex-Algorithm
   path computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV (FAESRLG) is used
   to advertise the exclude rule that is used during the Flex-Algorithm
   path calculation as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS FAESRLG Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  It
   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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Shared Risk Link Group Value             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 5

      Length: variable, dependent on number of SRLG values.  MUST be a
      multiple of 4 octets.

      Shared Risk Link Group Value: SRLG value as defined in [RFC5307].

   The IS-IS FAESRLG Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in a single
   IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV.  If it appears more than once, the IS-IS FAD Sub-
   TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   The IS-IS FAESRLG Sub-TLV MAY appear more than once in the set of FAD
   sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS.  This may be
   necessary in cases where the total number of SRLG values which are
   specified cause the FAD sub-TLV to exceed the maximum length of a
   single FAD sub-TLV.  In such a case the receiver MUST use the union
   of all values across all IS-IS FAESRLG Sub-TLVs from such set.

7.  Sub-TLVs of OSPF FAD TLV

7.1.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV (FAEAG Sub-TLV) is
   a Sub-TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  Its usage is described in
   Section 6.1.  It 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 1

      Length: variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
      Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
      defined in [RFC7308].

   The OSPF FAEAG Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF FAD
   TLV.  If it appears more than once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored
   by the receiver.

7.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV is a Sub-
   TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  The usage of this Sub-TLVs is described in
   Section 6.2.  It has the following format:

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 2

      Length: variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
      Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
      defined in [RFC7308].

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in an OSPF FAD TLV.  If it appears more than
   once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

7.3.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV is a Sub-
   TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  The usage of this Sub-TLVs is described in
   Section 6.3.  It 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 3

      Length: variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
      Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group: Extended Administrative Group as
      defined in [RFC7308].

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in an OSPF FAD TLV.  If it appears more than
   once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

7.4.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV (FADF Sub-TLV)
   is a Sub-TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  It 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Flags                             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 4

      Length: variable, dependent on the size of the Flags field.  MUST
      be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Flags:

                    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
                   |M| | |          ...
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...

         M-flag: when set, the Flex-Algorithm specific prefix and ASBR
         metric MUST be used for inter-area and external prefix
         calculation.  This flag is not applicable to prefixes
         advertised as SRv6 locators.

   A new IANA "IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Registry" is
   defined for allocation of bits in the Flags field - see Section 18.2.

   Bits are defined/sent starting with Bit 0 defined above.  Additional
   bit definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD be assigned
   in ascending bit order so as to minimize the number of bits that will
   need to be transmitted.

   Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   Bits that are not transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
   on receipt.

   The OSPF FADF Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF FAD
   TLV.  If it appears more than once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored
   by the receiver.

   If the OSPF FADF Sub-TLV is not present inside the OSPF FAD TLV, all
   the bits are assumed to be set to 0.

   If a node is configured to participate in a particular Flexible
   Algorithm, but the selected Flex-Algorithm definition includes a bit
   in the OSPF FADF Sub-TLV that is not supported by the node, it MUST
   stop participating in such Flexible Algorithm.

   New flag bits may be defined in the future.  Implementations MUST
   check all advertised flag bits in the received OSPF FADF Sub-TLV -
   not just the subset currently defined.

   M-flag MUST not be used when calculating prefix reachability for SRv6
   Locator prefix.

7.5.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV (FAESRLG Sub-TLV) is
   a Sub-TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  Its usage is described in
   Section 6.5.  It 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Shared Risk Link Group Value                |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 5

      Length: variable, dependent on the number of SRLGs.  MUST be a
      multiple of 4 octets.

      Shared Risk Link Group Value: SRLG value as defined in [RFC4203].

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   The OSPF FAESRLG Sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF
   FAD TLV.  If it appears more than once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be
   ignored by the receiver.

8.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) Sub-TLV supports
   the advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm specific prefix metric
   associated with a given prefix advertisement.

   The IS-IS FAPM Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237
   and 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     |Flex-Algorithm |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Metric                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   where:

      Type: 6

      Length: 5 octets

      Flex-Algorithm: Single octet value between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Metric: 4 octets of metric information

   The IS-IS FAPM Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times in its parent TLV.
   If it appears more than once with the same Flex-Algorithm value, the
   first instance MUST be used and any subsequent instances MUST be
   ignored.

   If a prefix is advertised with a Flex-Algorithm prefix metric larger
   than MAX_PATH_METRIC as defined in [RFC5305] this prefix MUST NOT be
   considered during the Flexible Algorithm computation.

   The usage of the Flex-Algorithm prefix metric is described in
   Section 13.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   The IS-IS FAPM Sub-TLV MUST NOT be advertised as a sub-TLV of the IS-
   IS SRv6 Locator TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions].  The IS-IS
   SRv6 Locator TLV includes the Algorithm and Metric fields which MUST
   be used instead.  If the FAPM Sub-TLV is present as a sub-TLV of the
   IS-IS SRv6 Locator TLV in the received LSP, such FAPM Sub-TLV MUST be
   ignored.

9.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) Sub-TLV supports the
   advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm specific prefix metric associated
   with a given prefix advertisement.

   The OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of
   the:

      - OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684]

      - Following OSPFv3 TLVs as defined in [RFC8362]:

         Inter-Area Prefix TLV

         External Prefix TLV

   OSPF FAPM 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Flex-Algorithm |     Flags     |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Metric                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

      Type: 3 for OSPFv2, 26 for OSPFv3

      Length: 8 octets

      Flex-Algorithm: Single octet value between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Flags: One octet value

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

                    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |E|             |
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         E bit : position 0: The type of external metric.  If bit is
         set, the metric specified is a Type 2 external metric.  This
         bit is applicable only to OSPF External and NSSA external
         prefixes.  This is semantically the same as the E bit in
         section A.4.5 of [RFC2328] and section A.4.7 of [RFC5340] for
         OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively.

         Bits 1 through 7: MUST be cleared by originator and ignored by
         receiver.

      Reserved: MUST be set to 0, ignored at reception.

      Metric: 4 octets of metric information

   The OSPF FAPM Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times in its parent TLV.
   If it appears more than once with the same Flex-Algorithm value, the
   first instance MUST be used and any subsequent instances MUST be
   ignored.

   The usage of the Flex-Algorithm prefix metric is described in
   Section 13.

10.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Reachability Advertisement

   An OSPF ABR advertises the reachability of ASBRs in its attached
   areas to enable routers within those areas to perform route
   calculations for external prefixes advertised by the ASBRs.  OSPF
   extensions for advertisement of Flex-Algorithm specific reachability
   and metric for ASBRs is similarly required for Flex-Algorithm
   external prefix computations as described further in Section 13.1.

10.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR LSA

   The OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR (EIA-ASBR) LSA is an OSPF Opaque
   LSA [RFC5250] that is used to advertise additional attributes related
   to the reachability of the OSPFv2 ASBR that is external to the area
   yet internal to the OSPF domain.  Semantically, the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR
   LSA is equivalent to the fixed format Type 4 Summary LSA [RFC2328].
   Unlike the Type 4 Summary LSA, the LSID of the EIA-ASBR LSA does not
   carry the ASBR Router-ID - the ASBR Router-ID is carried in the body
   of the LSA.  The OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA is advertised by an OSPFv2 ABR
   and its flooding is defined to be area-scoped only.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   An OSPFv2 ABR generates the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR when it is
   advertising the Type-4 Summary LSA for it and has the need for
   advertising additional attributes for that ASBR beyond what is
   conveyed in the fixed format Type-4 Summary LSA.  An OSPFv2 ABR MUST
   NOT advertise the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR for which it is not
   advertising the Type 4 Summary LSA.  This ensures that the ABR does
   not generate the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR to which it does not have
   reachability in the base OSPFv2 topology calculation.  The OSPFv2 ABR
   SHOULD NOT advertise the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR when it does not
   have additional attributes to advertise for that ASBR.

   The OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            LS age             |     Options   |   LS Type     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Opaque Type  |                 Opaque ID                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Advertising Router                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     LS sequence number                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         LS checksum           |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +-                            TLVs                             -+
     |                             ...                               |

   LS age and Options fields are as defined in Section A.4.1. of
   [RFC2328].

   The LS Type MUST be 10, indicating that the Opaque LSA flooding scope
   is area-local [RFC5250].

   The Opaque Type used by the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA is TBD1 (suggested
   value 11).  The Opaque Type is used to differentiate the various
   types of OSPFv2 Opaque LSAs and is described in Section 3 of
   [RFC5250].

   The Opaque ID field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple
   OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSAs.  For OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSAs, the Opaque ID has no
   semantic significance other than to differentiate OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR
   LSAs originated by the same OSPFv2 ABR.  If multiple OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR
   LSAs specify the same ASBR, the attributes from the Opaque LSA with
   the lowest Opaque ID SHOULD be used.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   Advertising Router, LS sequence number, and LS checksum fields are as
   defined in Section A.4.1. of [RFC2328].

   The Length field is as defined in Section A.4.1. of [RFC5250].  It
   represents the total length (in octets) of the Opaque LSA, including
   the LSA header and all TLVs (including padding).

   The format of the TLVs within the body of the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA is
   the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to
   OSPFv2 [RFC3630].  The variable TLV section consists of one or more
   nested TLV tuples.  Nested TLVs are also referred to as sub- TLVs.
   The TLV Length field defines the length of the value portion in
   octets (thus, a TLV with no value portion would have a length of 0).
   The TLV is padded to 4-octet alignment; padding is not included in
   the Length field (so a 3-octet value would have a length of 3, but
   the total size of the TLV would be 8 octets).  Nested TLVs are also
   32-bit aligned.  For example, a 1-octet value would have the Length
   field set to 1, and 3 octets of padding would be added to the end of
   the value portion of the TLV.  The padding is composed of zeros.

10.1.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLV

   The OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR (EIA-ASBR) TLV is a top-level TLV
   of the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA and is used to advertise additional
   attributes associated with the reachability of an ASBR.

   The OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR 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              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        ASBR Router ID                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                            Sub-TLVs                           .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

      Type: 1

      Length: variable number of octets

      ASBR Router ID: four octets carrying the OSPF Router ID of the
      ASBR whose information is being carried.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Sub-TLVs : variable

   Only a single OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR TLV MUST be advertised in each OSPFv2
   EIA-ASBR LSA and the receiver MUST ignore all instances of this TLV
   other than the first one in an LSA.

   OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR TLV MUST be present inside an OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA and
   MUST include at least a single sub-TLV, otherwise the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR
   LSA MUST be ignored by the receiver.

10.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric (FAAM) Sub-TLV supports the
   advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm specific metric associated with a
   given ASBR reachability advertisement by an ABR.

   The OSPF Flex-Algorithm ASBR Metric (FAAM) Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of
   the:

      - OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLV as defined in Section 10.1.1

      - OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router TLV defined in [RFC8362]

   OSPF FAAM 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Flex-Algorithm |                   Reserved                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Metric                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

      Type: 1 for OSPFv2, TBD2 (suggested value 33) for OSPFv3

      Length: 8 octets

      Flex-Algorithm: Single octet value between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Reserved: Three octets.  MUST be set to 0, ignored at reception.

      Metric: 4 octets of metric information

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   The OSPF FAAM Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times in its parent TLV.
   If it appears more than once with the same Flex-Algorithm value, the
   first instance MUST be used and any subsequent instances MUST be
   ignored.

   The advertisement of the ASBR reachability using the OSPF FAAM Sub-
   TLV inside the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA follows Section 12.4.3 of
   [RFC2328] and inside the OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Router LSA follows
   Section 4.8.5 of [RFC5340].  The reachability of the ASBR is
   evaluated in the context of the specific Flex-Algorithm.

   The FAAM computed by the ABR will be equal to the metric to reach the
   ASBR for a given Flex-Algorithm in a source area or the cumulative
   metric via other ABR(s) when the ASBR is in a remote area.  This is
   similar in nature to how the metric is set when the ASBR reachability
   metric is computed in the default algorithm for the metric in the
   OSPFv2 Type 4 ASBR Summary LSA and the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router LSA.

   An OSPF ABR MUST NOT include the OSPF FAAM Sub-TLV with a specific
   Flex-Algorithm in its reachability advertisement for an ASBR between
   areas unless that ASBR is reachable for it in the context of that
   specific Flex-Algorithm.

   An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF FAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
   reachability advertisement between areas for any Flex-Algorithm for
   which the winning FAD includes the M-flag and the ASBR is reachable
   in the context of that specific Flex-Algorithm.

   OSPF routers MUST use the OSPF FAAM Sub-TLV to calculate the
   reachability of the ASBRs if the winning FAD for the specific Flex-
   Algorithm includes the M-flag.  OSPF routers MUST NOT use the OSPF
   FAAM Sub-TLV to calculate the reachability of the ASBRs for the
   specific Flex-Algorithm if the winning FAD for such Flex-Algorithm
   does not include the M-flag.  Instead, the OSPFv2 Type 4 Summary LSAs
   or the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router-LSAs MUST be used instead as
   specified in section 16.2 of [RFC2328] and section 4.8.5 of [RFC5340]
   for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively.

   The processing of a new or changed OSPF FAAM Sub-TLV triggers the
   processing of External routes similar to what is described in section
   16.5 of the [RFC2328] for OSPFv2 and section 4.8.5 of [RFC5340] for
   OSPFv3 for the specific Flex-Algorithm.  The External and NSSA
   External route calculation should be limited to Flex-Algorithm(s) for
   which the winning FAD(s) includes the M-flag.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   Processing of the OSPF FAAM Sub-TLV does not require the existence of
   the equivalent OSPFv2 Type 4 Summary LSA or the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-
   Router-LSA that is advertised by the same ABR inside the area.  The
   presence of the base LSA is not mandatory for the usage of the
   extended LSA with the OSPF FAAM Sub-TLV.

11.  Advertisement of Node Participation in a Flex-Algorithm

   When a router is configured to participate in a particular Flex-
   Algorithm and is advertising such participation, it is participating
   in that Flex-Algorithm.

   Paths for various data-planes MAY be computed for a specific Flex-
   Algorithm.  Each data-plane uses its own specific forwarding over
   such Flex-Algorithm paths.  To guarantee the presence of the data-
   plane specific forwarding, associated with a particular Flex-
   Algorithm, a router MUST advertise its participation for a particular
   Flex-Algorithm for each data-plane.  Some data-planes may share a
   common participation advertisement (e.g.  SR-MPLS and SRv6).

   Advertisement of the participation for any particular Flex-Algorithm
   in any data-plane is subject to the condition specified in
   Section 5.3.

11.1.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment Routing

   [RFC8667], [RFC8665], and [RFC8666] (IGP Segment Routing extensions)
   describe how the SR-Algorithm is used to compute the IGP best path.

   Routers advertise support for the SR-Algorithm as a node capability
   as described in the above-mentioned IGP Segment Routing extensions.
   To advertise participation for a particular Flex-Algorithm for
   Segment Routing, including both SR-MPLS and SRv6, the Flex-Algorithm
   value MUST be advertised in the SR-Algorithm TLV (OSPF) or sub-TLV
   (IS-IS).

   Segment Routing Flex-Algorithm participation advertisement is
   topology independent.  When a router advertises participation in an
   SR-Algorithm, the participation applies to all topologies in which
   the advertising node participates.

11.2.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Other Data-planes

   This section describes considerations related to how other data-
   planes can advertise their participation in a specific Flex-
   Algorithm.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   Data-plane specific Flex-Algorithm participation advertisements MAY
   be topology specific or MAY be topology independent, depending on the
   data-plane itself.

   Data-plane specific advertisement for Flex-Algorithm participation
   MUST be defined for each data-plane and is outside the scope of this
   document.

12.  Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm

   Various link attributes may be used during the Flex-Algorithm path
   calculation.  For example, include or exclude rules based on link
   affinities can be part of the Flex-Algorithm definition as defined in
   Section 6 and Section 7.

   Application-specific link attributes, as specified in [RFC8919] or
   [RFC8920], that are to be used during Flex-Algorithm calculation MUST
   use the Application-Specific Link Attribute (ASLA) advertisements
   defined in [RFC8919] or [RFC8920], unless, in the case of IS-IS, the
   L-Flag is set in the ASLA advertisement.  When the L-Flag is set,
   then legacy advertisements MUST be used, subject to the procedures
   and constraints defined in [[RFC8919] Section 4.2 and Section 6.

   The mandatory use of ASLA advertisements applies to link attributes
   specifically mentioned in this document (Min Unidirectional Link
   Delay, TE Default Metric, Administrative Group, Extended
   Administrative Group and Shared Risk Link Group) and any other link
   attributes that may be used in support of Flex-Algorithm in the
   future.

   A new Application Identifier Bit is defined to indicate that the ASLA
   advertisement is associated with the Flex-Algorithm application.
   This bit is set in the Standard Application Bit Mask (SABM) defined
   in [RFC8919] or [RFC8920]:

      Bit-3: Flexible Algorithm (X-bit)

   ASLA Admin Group Advertisements to be used by the Flexible Algorithm
   application MAY use either the Administrative Group or Extended
   Administrative Group encodings.

   A receiver supporting this specification MUST accept both ASLA
   Administrative Group and Extended Administrative Group TLVs as
   defined in [RFC8919] or [RFC8920].  In the case of IS-IS, if the
   L-Flag is set in ASLA advertisement, as defined in [RFC8919]
   Section 4.2, then the receiver MUST be able to accept both
   Administrative Group TLV as defined in [RFC5305] and Extended
   Administrative Group TLV as defined in [RFC7308].

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

13.  Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths

   A router MUST be configured to participate in a given Flex-Algorithm
   K and MUST select the FAD based on the rules defined in Section 5.3
   before it can compute any path for that Flex-Algorithm.

   No specific two-way connectivity check is performed during the Flex-
   Algorithm path computation.  The result of the existing, Flex-
   Algorithm agnostic, two-way connectivity check is used during the
   Flex-Algorithm path computation.

   As described in Section 11, participation for any particular Flex-
   Algorithm MUST be advertised on a per data-plane basis.  Calculation
   of the paths for any particular Flex-Algorithm is data-plane
   specific.

   Multiple data-planes MAY use the same Flex-Algorithm value at the
   same time, and as such, share the FAD for it.  Traffic for each data-
   plane will be forwarded based on the data-plane specific forwarding
   entries.

   Flex-Algorithm definition is data-plane independent and is used by
   all Flex-Algorithm data-planes.

   The way various data-planes handle nodes that do not participate in
   Flexible Algorithm is data-plane specific.  If the data-plane only
   wants to consider participating nodes during the Flex-Algorithm
   calculation, then when computing paths for a given Flex-Algorithm,
   all nodes that do not advertise participation for that Flex-Algorithm
   in their data-plane specific advertisements MUST be pruned from the
   topology.  Segment Routing, including both SR-MPLS and SRv6, are
   data-planes that MUST use such pruning when computing Flex-Algorithm
   paths.

   When computing the path for a given Flex-Algorithm, the metric-type
   that is part of the Flex-Algorithm definition (Section 5) MUST be
   used.

   When computing the path for a given Flex-Algorithm, the calculation-
   type that is part of the Flex-Algorithm definition (Section 5) MUST
   be used.

   Various link include or exclude rules can be part of the Flex-
   Algorithm definition.  To refer to a particular bit within an Admin
   Group or Extended Admin Group we use the term 'color'.

   Rules, in the order as specified below, MUST be used to prune links
   from the topology during the Flex-Algorithm computation.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   For all links in the topology:

      1.  Check if any exclude AG rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
      definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if any color that
      is part of the exclude rule is also set on the link.  If such a
      color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the computation.

      2.  Check if any exclude SRLG rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
      definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if the link is
      part of any SRLG that is also part of the SRLG exclude rule.  If
      the link is part of such SRLG, the link MUST be pruned from the
      computation.

      3.  Check if any include-any AG rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
      definition.  If such include-any rule exists, check if any color
      that is part of the include-any rule is also set on the link.  If
      no such color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the
      computation.

      4.  Check if any include-all AG rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
      definition.  If such include-all rule exists, check if all colors
      that are part of the include-all rule are also set on the link.
      If all such colors are not set on the link, the link MUST be
      pruned from the computation.

      5.  If the Flex-Algorithm definition uses other than IGP metric
      (Section 5), and such metric is not advertised for the particular
      link in a topology for which the computation is done, such link
      MUST be pruned from the computation.  A metric of value 0 MUST NOT
      be assumed in such a case.

13.1.  Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations

   Any IGP Shortest Path Tree calculation is limited to a single area.
   This applies to Flex-Algorithm calculations as well.  Given that the
   computing router does not have visibility of the topology of the next
   areas or domain, the Flex-Algorithm specific path to an inter-area or
   inter-domain prefix will be computed for the local area only.  The
   egress L1/L2 router (ABR in OSPF), or ASBR for inter-domain case,
   will be selected based on the best path for the given Flex-Algorithm
   in the local area and such egress ABR or ASBR router will be
   responsible to compute the best Flex-Algorithm specific path over the
   next area or domain.  This may produce an end-to-end path, which is
   suboptimal based on Flex-Algorithm constraints.  In cases where the
   ABR or ASBR has no reachability to a prefix for a given Flex-
   Algorithm in the next area or domain, the traffic could be dropped by
   the ABR/ASBR.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   To allow the optimal end-to-end path for an inter-area or inter-
   domain prefix for any Flex-Algorithm to be computed, the FAPM has
   been defined in Section 8 and Section 9.  For external route
   calculation for prefixes originated by ASBRs in remote areas in OSPF,
   the FAAM has been defined in Section 10.2 for the ABR to indicate its
   ASBR reachability along with the metric for the specific Flex-
   Algorithm.

   If the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3
   includes the M-flag, an ABR or ASBR MUST include the FAPM (Section 8,
   Section 9) when advertising the prefix, that is reachable in a given
   Flex-Algorithm, between areas or domains.  Such metric will be equal
   to the metric to reach the prefix for that Flex-Algorithm in its
   source area or domain.  This is similar in nature to how the metric
   is set when prefixes are advertised between areas or domains for the
   default algorithm.  When a prefix is unreachable in its source area
   or domain in a specific Flex-Algorithm, then an ABR or ASBR MUST NOT
   include the FAPM for that Flex-Algorithm when advertising the prefix
   between areas or domains.

   If the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3
   includes the M-flag, the FAPM MUST be used during the calculation of
   prefix reachability for the inter-area and external prefixes.  If the
   FAPM for the Flex-Algorithm is not advertised with the inter-area or
   external prefix reachability advertisement, the prefix MUST be
   considered as unreachable for that Flex-Algorithm.  Similarly, in the
   case of OSPF, for ASBRs in remote areas, if the FAAM is not
   advertised by the local ABR(s), the ASBR MUST be considered as
   unreachable for that Flex-Algorithm and the external prefix
   advertisements from such an ASBR are not considered for that Flex-
   Algorithm.

   Flex-Algorithm prefix metrics and the OSPF Flex-Algorithm ASBR
   metrics MUST NOT be used during the Flex-Algorithm computation unless
   the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3 includes
   the M-Flag, as described in (Section 6.4 or Section 7.4).

   In the case of OSPF, when calculating external routes in a Flex-
   Algorithm, if the winning FAD includes the M-Flag, and where the
   advertising ASBR is in a remote area, the metric will be the sum of
   the following:

   *  the FAPM for that Flex-Algorithm advertised with the external
      route by the ASBR

   *  the metric to reach the ASBR for that Flex-Algorithm from the
      local ABR i.e., the FAAM for that Flex-Algorithm advertised by the
      ABR in the local area for that ASBR

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   *  the Flex-Algorithm specific metric to reach the local ABR

   This is similar in nature to how the metric is calculated for routes
   learned from remote ASBRs in the default algorithm using the OSPFv2
   Type 4 ASBR Summary LSA and the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router LSA.

   If the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3 does
   not include the M-flag, then the IGP metrics associated with the
   prefix reachability advertisements used by the base IS-IS and OSPF
   protocol MUST be used for the Flex-Algorithm route computation.
   Similarly, in the case of external route calculations in OSPF, the
   ASBR reachability is determined based on the base OSPFv2 Type 4
   Summary LSA and the OSFPv3 Inter-Area-Router LSA.

   It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the Flex-Algorithm for inter-area or
   inter-domain prefix reachability without the M-flag set.  The reason
   is that without the explicit Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric
   advertisement (and the Flex-Algorithm ASBR metric advertisement in
   the case of OSPF external route calculation), it is not possible to
   conclude whether the ABR or ASBR has reachability to the inter-area
   or inter-domain prefix for a given Flex-Algorithm in the next area or
   domain.  Sending the Flex-Algorithm traffic for such a prefix towards
   the ABR or ASBR may result in traffic looping or persistent traffic
   drop.

   During the route computation, it is possible for the Flex-Algorithm
   specific metric to exceed the maximum value that can be stored in an
   unsigned 32-bit variable.  In such scenarios, the value MUST be
   considered to be of value 0xFFFFFFFF during the computation and
   advertised as such.

   The FAPM MUST NOT be advertised with IS-IS L1 or L2 intra-area,
   OSPFv2 intra-area, or OSPFv3 intra-area routes.  If the FAPM is
   advertised for these route-types, it MUST be ignored during the
   prefix reachability calculation.

   The M-flag in the FAD is not applicable to prefixes advertised as
   SRv6 locators.  The IS-IS SRv6 Locator TLV
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] includes the Algorithm and Metric
   fields.  When the SRv6 Locator is advertised between areas or
   domains, the metric field in the Locator TLV of IS-IS MUST be used
   irrespective of the M-flag in the FAD advertisement.

   OSPF external and NSSA external prefix advertisements MAY include a
   non-zero forwarding address in the prefix advertisements in the base
   protocol.  In such a scenario, the Flex-Algorithm specific
   reachability of the external prefix is determined by Flex-Algorithm
   specific reachability of the forwarding address.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   In OSPF, the procedures for translation of NSSA external prefix
   advertisements into external prefix advertisements performed by an
   NSSA ABR [RFC3101] remain unchanged for Flex-Algorithm.  An NSSA
   translator MUST include the OSPF FAPM Sub-TLVs for all Flex-
   Algorithms that are in the original NSSA external prefix
   advertisement from the NSSA ASBR in the translated external prefix
   advertisement generated by it regardless of its participation in
   those Flex-Algorithms or its having reachability to the NSSA ASBR in
   those Flex-Algorithms.

   An area could become partitioned from the perspective of the Flex-
   Algorithm due to the constraints and/or metric being used for it,
   while maintaining the continuity in the base algorithm.  When that
   happens, some destinations inside that area could become unreachable
   in that Flex-Algorithm.  These destinations will not be able to use
   an inter-area path.  This is the consequence of the fact that the
   inter-area prefix reachability advertisement would not be available
   for these intra-area destinations within the area.  It is RECOMMENDED
   to minimize the risk of such partitioning by providing enough
   redundancy inside the area for each Flex-Algorithm being used.

14.  Flex-Algorithm and Forwarding Plane

   This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used in
   forwarding.

14.1.  Segment Routing MPLS Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm

   This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used with SR MPLS
   forwarding.

   Prefix SID advertisements include an SR-Algorithm value and, as such,
   are associated with the specified SR-Algorithm.  Prefix-SIDs are also
   associated with a specific topology which is inherited from the
   associated prefix reachability advertisement.  When the algorithm
   value advertised is a Flex-Algorithm value, the Prefix SID is
   associated with paths calculated using that Flex-Algorithm in the
   associated topology.

   A Flex-Algorithm path MUST be installed in the MPLS forwarding plane
   using the MPLS label that corresponds to the Prefix-SID that was
   advertised for that Flex-algorithm.  If the Prefix SID for a given
   Flex-algorithm is not known, the Flex-Algorithm specific path cannot
   be installed in the MPLS forwarding plane.

   Traffic that is supposed to be routed via Flex-Algorithm specific
   paths MUST be dropped when there are no such paths available.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   Loop Free Alternate (LFA) paths ([RFC6571] or its variants) for a
   given Flex-Algorithm MUST be computed using the same constraints as
   the calculation of the primary paths for that Flex-Algorithm.  LFA
   paths MUST only use Prefix-SIDs advertised specifically for the given
   algorithm.  LFA paths MUST NOT use an Adjacency-SID that belongs to a
   link that has been pruned from the Flex-Algorithm computation.

   If LFA protection is being used to protect a given Flex-Algorithm
   paths, all routers in the area participating in the given Flex-
   Algorithm SHOULD advertise at least one Flex-Algorithm specific Node-
   SID.  These Node-SIDs are used to steer traffic over the LFA computed
   backup path.

14.2.  SRv6 Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm

   This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used with SRv6
   forwarding.

   In SRv6 a node is provisioned with a (topology, algorithm) specific
   locator for each of the topology/algorithm pairs supported by that
   node.  Each locator is an aggregate prefix for all SIDs provisioned
   on that node which have the matching topology/algorithm.

   The SRv6 locator advertisement in IS-IS
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] includes the MTID value that
   associates the locator with a specific topology.  SRv6 locator
   advertisements also includes an Algorithm value that explicitly
   associates the locator with a specific algorithm.  When the algorithm
   value advertised with a locator represents a Flex-Algorithm, the
   paths to the locator prefix MUST be calculated using the specified
   Flex-Algorithm in the associated topology.

   Forwarding entries for the locator prefixes advertised in IS-IS MUST
   be installed in the forwarding plane of the receiving SRv6 capable
   routers when the associated topology/algorithm is participating in
   them.  Forwarding entries for locators associated with Flex-
   Algorithms in which the node is not participating MUST NOT be
   installed in the forwarding plane.

   When the locator is associated with a Flex-Algorithm, LFA paths to
   the locator prefix MUST be calculated using such Flex-Algorithm in
   the associated topology, to guarantee that they follow the same
   constraints as the calculation of the primary paths.  LFA paths MUST
   only use SRv6 SIDs advertised specifically for the given Flex-
   Algorithm.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   If LFA protection is being used to protect locators associated with a
   given Flex-Algorithm, all routers in the area participating in the
   given Flex-Algorithm SHOULD advertise at least one Flex-Algorithm
   specific locator and END SID per node and one END.X SID for every
   link that has not been pruned from such Flex-Algorithm computation.
   These locators and SIDs are used to steer traffic over the LFA-
   computed backup path.

14.3.  Other Data-planes' Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm

   Any data-plane that wants to use Flex-Algorithm specific forwarding
   needs to install some form of Flex-Algorithm specific forwarding
   entries.

   Data-plane specific forwarding for Flex-Algorithm MUST be defined for
   each data-plane and is outside the scope of this document.

15.  Operational Considerations

15.1.  Inter-area Considerations

   The scope of the Flex-Algorithm computation is an area, so is the
   scope of the FAD.  In IS-IS, the Router Capability TLV in which the
   FAD Sub-TLV is advertised MUST have the S-bit clear, which prevents
   it from being flooded outside the level in which it was originated.
   Even though in OSPF the FAD Sub-TLV can be flooded in an RI LSA that
   has AS flooding scope, the FAD selection is performed for each
   individual area in which it is being used.

   There is no requirement for the FAD for a particular Flex-Algorithm
   to be identical in all areas in the network.  For example, traffic
   for the same Flex-Algorithm may be optimized for minimal delay (e.g.,
   using delay metric) in one area or level, while being optimized for
   available bandwidth (e.g., using IGP metric) in another area or
   level.

   As described in Section 5.1, IS-IS allows the re-generation of the
   winning FAD from level 2, without any modification to it, into a
   level 1 area.  This allows the operator to configure the FAD in one
   or multiple routers in the level 2, without the need to repeat the
   same task in each level 1 area, if the intent is to have the same FAD
   for the particular Flex-Algorithm across all levels.  This can
   similarly be achieved in OSPF by using the AS flooding scope of the
   RI LSA in which the FAD Sub-TLV for the particular Flex-Algoritm is
   advertised.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   Re-generation of the FAD from a level 1 area to the level 2 area is
   not supported in IS-IS, so if the intent is to regenerate the FAD
   between IS-IS levels, the FAD MUST be defined on router(s) that are
   in level 2.  In OSPF, the FAD definition can be done in any area and
   be propagated to all routers in the OSPF routing domain by using the
   AS flooding scope of the RI LSA.

15.2.  Usage of SRLG Exclude Rule with Flex-Algorithm

   There are two different ways in which SRLG information can be used
   with Flex-Algorithm:

      In a context of a single Flex-Algorithm, it can be used for
      computation of backup paths, as described in
      [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa].  This usage does not
      require association of any specific SRLG constraint with the given
      Flex-Algorithm definition.

      In the context of multiple Flex-Algorithms, it can be used for
      creating disjoint sets of paths by pruning the links belonging to
      a specific SRLG from the topology on which a specific Flex-
      Algorithm computes its paths.  This usage:

         Facilitates the usage of already deployed SRLG configurations
         for setup of disjoint paths between two or more Flex-
         Algorithms.

         Requires explicit association of a given Flex-Algorithm with a
         specific set of SRLG constraints as defined in Section 6.5 and
         Section 7.5.

   The two usages mentioned above are orthogonal.

15.3.  Max-metric consideration

   Both IS-IS and OSPF have a mechanism to set the IGP metric on a link
   to a value that would make the link either non-reachable or to serve
   as the link of last resort.  Similar functionality would be needed
   for the Min Unidirectional Link Delay and TE metric, as these can be
   used to compute Flex-Algorithm paths.

   The link can be made un-reachable for all Flex-Algorithms that use
   Min Unidirectional Link Delay as metric, as described in Section 5.1,
   by removing the Flex-Algorithm ASLA Min Unidirectional Link Delay
   advertisement for the link.  The link can be made the link of last
   resort by setting the delay value in the Flex-Algorithm ASLA delay
   advertisement for the link to the value of 16,777,215 (2^24 - 1).

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   The link can be made un-reachable for all Flex-Algorithms that use TE
   metric, as described in Section 5.1, by removing the Flex-Algorithm
   ASLA TE metric advertisement for the link.  The link can be made the
   link of last resort by setting the TE metric value in the Flex-
   Algorithm ASLA delay advertisement for the link to the value of (2^24
   - 1) in IS-IS and (2^32 - 1) in OSPF.

15.4.  FAD Definition and Changes

   When configuring a node to participate in a specific Flex-Algorithm,
   the components of the FAD (calculation-type, metric-type,
   constraints) should be considered carefully.  The configuration of
   participation in a particular Flex-Algorithm doesn't guarantee that
   the node will actively participate in it, because it may not support
   the calculation-type, metric type or some constraint advertised by
   the winning FAD (see Section 5.3).  Changes in the FAD configuration
   should also be considered in light of the capabilities of the
   participating routers in the scope of the FAD advertisement.

   As Section 5.3 notes, a change in the Flex-Algorithm definition may
   require network-wide SPF re-computation and network re-convergence.
   This potential for disruption should be taken into consideration when
   planning and making changes to the FAD.

15.5.  Number of Flex-Algorithms

   The maximum number of Flex-Algorithms is determined by the algorithm
   range that is (128-255), as specified in Section 4.  Although
   possible, it is not expected that all of them will be used
   simultaneously.  Typically, only a limited subset of Flex-Algorithms
   is expected to be deployed in the network.

16.  Backward Compatibility

   This extension brings no new backward compatibility issues.  IS-IS,
   OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 all have well-defined handling of unrecognized TLVs
   and sub-TLVs that allows the introduction of new extensions, similar
   to those defined here, without introducing any interoperability
   issues.

17.  Security Considerations

   This draft adds two new ways to disrupt IGP networks:

      An attacker can hijack a particular Flex-Algorithm by advertising
      a FAD with a priority of 255 (or any priority higher than that of
      the legitimate nodes).

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      An attacker could make it look like a router supports a particular
      Flex-Algorithm when it actually doesn't, or vice versa.

   Both of these attacks can be addressed by the existing security
   extensions as described in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] for IS-IS, in
   [RFC2328] and [RFC7474] for OSPFv2, and in [RFC5340] and [RFC4552]
   for OSPFv3.

   If the node that is authenticated is taken over by an attacker, such
   rogue node can advertise the FAD for any Flex-Algorithm.  Doing so
   may result in traffic for such Flex-Algorithm to be misrouted, or not
   being delivered at all, for example, by using an unsupported metric-
   type, calculation-type, or constraint.  Such attack is not
   preventable through authentication, and it is not different from
   advertising any other incorrect information through IS-IS or OSPF.

18.  IANA Considerations

18.1.  IGP IANA Considerations

18.1.1.  IGP Algorithm Types Registry

   This document makes the following registrations in the "IGP Algorithm
   Types" registry:

      Type: 128-255.

      Description: Flexible Algorithms.

      Reference: This document (Section 4).

18.1.2.  IGP Metric-Type Registry

   IANA is requested to set up a registry called "IGP Metric-Type
   Registry" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA
   grouping.  The registration policy for this registry is "Standards
   Action" ([RFC8126] and [RFC7120]).

   Values in this registry come from the range 0-255.

   This document registers following values in the "IGP Metric-Type
   Registry":

      Type: 0

      Description: IGP metric

      Reference: This document (Section 5.1)

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Type: 1

      Description: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in
      [RFC8570], section 4.2, and [RFC7471], section 4.2.

      Reference: This document (Section 5.1)

      Type: 2

      Description: Traffic Engineering Default Metric as defined in
      [RFC5305], section 3.7, and Traffic engineering metric as defined
      in [RFC3630], section 2.5.5

      Reference: This document (Section 5.1)

18.2.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Registry

   IANA is requested to set up a registry called "IGP Flexible Algorithm
   Definition Flags Registry" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
   Parameters" IANA grouping.  The registration policy for this registry
   is "Standards Action" ([RFC8126] and [RFC7120]).  New registrations
   should be assigned in ascending bit order (see Section 6.4).

   This document defines the following single bit in Flexible Algorithm
   Definition Flags registry:

           Bit #   Name
           -----   ------------------------------
           0       Prefix Metric Flag (M-flag)

   Reference: This document (Section 6.4, Section 7.4).

18.3.  IS-IS IANA Considerations

18.3.1.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV

   This document makes the following registrations in the "IS-IS Sub-
   TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV" registry.

      Type: 26.

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD)

      Reference: This document (Section 5.1).

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

18.3.2.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability

   This document makes the following registrations in the "IS-IS Sub-
   TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability" registry.

      Type: 6

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM).

      Reference: This document (Section 8).

18.3.3.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV

   This document creates the following Sub-Sub-TLV Registry, under the
   IS-IS TLV Codepoints grouping.

      Registry: Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV

      Registration Procedure: Expert review.  (Note that the IS-IS TLV
      Codepoints grouping includes Expert Review guidance that applies
      to all registries thereunder.)

      Reference: This document (Section 5.1)

   This document defines the following Sub-Sub-TLVs in the "Sub-Sub-TLVs
   for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV" registry:

      Type: 0

      Description: Reserved

      Reference: This document.

      Type: 1

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group

      Reference: This document (Section 6.1).

      Type: 2

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group

      Reference: This document (Section 6.2).

      Type: 3

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Reference: This document (Section 6.3).

      Type: 4

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags

      Reference: This document (Section 6.4).

      Type: 5

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG

      Reference: This document (Section 6.5).

      Type: 6-255

      Description: Unassigned

      Reference: This document.

18.4.  OSPF IANA Considerations

18.4.1.  OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry

   This specification makes the following registration in the OSPF
   Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry.

      Type: 16

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) TLV.

      Reference: This document (Section 5.2).

18.4.2.  OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs

   This document makes the following registrations in the "OSPFv2
   Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry.

      Type: 3

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM).

      Reference: This document (Section 9).

18.4.3.  OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs

   This document makes the following registrations in the "OSPFv3
   Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Type: 26

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM).

      Reference: This document (Section 9).

      Type: TBD2 (suggested value 33)

      Description: OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric

      Reference: This document (Section 10.2).

18.4.4.  OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Bits

   This specification requests creation of the "OSPF Flex-Algorithm
   Prefix Metric Bits" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First
   (OSPF) Parameters" with the following initial values:

      Bit Number: 0

      Description: E bit - External Type

      Reference: this document (Section 9).

   The bits 1-7 are unassigned and the registration procedure to be
   followed for this registry is IETF Review.

18.4.5.  OSPFv2 Opaque LSA Option Types

   This document makes the following registrations in the "Open Shortest
   Path First (OSPF) Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option
   Types" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2)
   Parameters" grouping.

      Value: TBD1 (suggested value 11)

      Description: OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR (EIA-ASBR) LSA

      Reference: This document (Section 10.1).

18.4.6.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLVs

   This specification requests creation of "OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area
   ASBR TLVs" registry under the OSPFv2 Parameters Registry with the
   following initial values.

      Value: 1

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Description : Extended Inter-Area ASBR

      Reference: this document

   The values 2 to 32767 are unassigned, values 32768 to 33023 are
   reserved for experimental use while the values 0 and 33024 to 65535
   are reserved.  The registration procedure to be followed for this
   registry is IETF Review or IESG Approval.

18.4.7.  OSPFv2 Inter-Area ASBR Sub-TLVs

   This specification requests creation of "OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area
   ASBR Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2
   (OSPFv2) Parameters" grouping, with the following initial values.

      Value: 1

      Description : OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric

      Reference: this document

   The values 2 to 32767 are unassigned, values 32768 to 33023 are
   reserved for experimental use while the values 0 and 33024 to 65535
   are reserved.  The registration procedure to be followed for this
   registry is IETF Review or IESG Approval.

18.4.8.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLV Registry

   This document creates the following registry under the "Open Shortest
   Path First (OSPF) Parameters" grouping:

      Registry: OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV sub-TLVs

      Registration Procedure: IETF Review or IESG Approval

      Reference: This document (Section 5.2)

   The "OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV sub-TLV" registry will
   define sub-TLVs at any level of nesting for the Flexible Algorithm
   TLV New values can be allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval.

   This document registers following Sub-TLVs in the "OSPF Flexible
   Algorithm Definition TLV sub-TLV" registry:

      Type: 1

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

      Reference: This document (Section 7.1).

      Type: 2

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group

      Reference: This document (Section 7.2).

      Type: 3

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group

      Reference: This document (Section 7.3).

      Type: 4

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags

      Reference: This document (Section 7.4).

      Type: 5

      Description: Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG

      Reference: This document (Section 7.5).

   The values 2 to 32767 are unassigned, values 32768-33023 are for
   experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA.

   Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time.
   Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there
   MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that
   covers the range being assigned.

18.4.9.  Link Attribute Applications Registry

   This document registers following bit in the Link Attribute
   Applications Registry:

      Bit-3

      Description: Flexible Algorithm (X-bit)

      Reference: This document (Section 12).

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

19.  Acknowledgements

   This draft, among other things, is also addressing the problem that
   the [I-D.gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr] was trying to solve.
   All authors of that draft agreed to join this draft.

   Thanks to Eric Rosen, Tony Przygienda, William Britto A J, Gunter Van
   De Velde, Dirk Goethals, Manju Sivaji and, Baalajee S for their
   detailed review and excellent comments.

   Thanks to Cengiz Halit for his review and feedback during initial
   phase of the solution definition.

   Thanks to Kenji Kumaki for his comments.

   Thanks to Acee Lindem for editorial comments.

20.  References

20.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
              Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over
              IPv6 Dataplane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18, 20 October 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
              extensions-18.txt>.

   [ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-
              domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in
              conjunction with the protocol for providing the
              connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
              IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, November 2002.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5250]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
              OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
              July 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   [RFC5307]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
              in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.

   [RFC7308]  Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
              Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7770]  Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
              S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
              Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
              February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.

   [RFC7981]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
              for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8660]  Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.

   [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>.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   [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>.

   [RFC8667]  Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
              Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
              Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.

   [RFC8919]  Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and
              J. Drake, "IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes",
              RFC 8919, DOI 10.17487/RFC8919, October 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8919>.

   [RFC8920]  Psenak, P., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura,
              J., and J. Drake, "OSPF Application-Specific Link
              Attributes", RFC 8920, DOI 10.17487/RFC8920, October 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8920>.

20.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr]
              Hegde, S. and A. Gulko, "Separating Routing Planes using
              Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00, 13 March 2017,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gulkohegde-routing-
              planes-using-sr-00.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
              Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
              Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
              Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
              08, 21 January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
              draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-08.txt>.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC3101]  Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
              RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   [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>.

   [RFC3906]  Shen, N. and H. Smit, "Calculating Interior Gateway
              Protocol (IGP) Routes Over Traffic Engineering Tunnels",
              RFC 3906, DOI 10.17487/RFC3906, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3906>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5304]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

   [RFC5310]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
              and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

   [RFC6571]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Francois, P., Ed., Shand, M., Decraene,
              B., Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
              Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
              Networks", RFC 6571, DOI 10.17487/RFC6571, June 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6571>.

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

   [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>.

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   [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>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8570]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
              D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
              Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.

   [RFC8986]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
              D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
              (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.

Authors' Addresses

   Peter Psenak (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Apollo Business Center
   Mlynske nivy 43
   Bratislava
   Slovakia
   Email: ppsenak@cisco.com

   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Embassy Business Park
   Bangalore, KA
   560093
   India
   Email: shraddha@juniper.net

   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   Belgium
   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft           IGP Flexible Algorithm             October 2022

   Ketan Talaulikar
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   India
   Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com

   Arkadiy Gulko
   Edward Jones
   Email: arkadiy.gulko@edwardjones.com

Psenak, et al.            Expires 9 April 2023                 [Page 51]