BIER S. Dhanaraj
Internet-Draft G. Yan
Updates: 8296 (if approved) Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track I. Wijnands
Expires: 23 March 2023 Individual
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Z. Zhang, Ed.
Juniper Networks.
J. Xie
Huawei
19 September 2022
LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation
draft-ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions-01
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow
state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks.
This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS, OSPFv2
and OSPFv3 protocols for supporting BIER in non-MPLS networks using
BIER non-MPLS encapsulation.
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 23 March 2023.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IS-IS BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV . . . . . . 5
3.2. OSPFv2 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 6
3.3. OSPFv3 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry . . . . 10
5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . 10
5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is an architecture
that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow
state. BIER specific forwarding state, while not per-flow, are
maintained in Bit Index Forwarding Tables (BIFTs) and used to forward
BIER-encapsulated packets.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks. [RFC8296]
specifies a common BIER header format for both MPLS and non-MPLS
networks, though the first 20-bits (referred to as BIFT-id) of the
BIER header is an "MPLS Label" in case of MPLS networks and is a
"domain-wide unique value" in case of non-MPLS networks. It
identifies the BIFT used to forwarding the packet.
[I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] specifies two optional ways of
statically assigning domain-wide unique BIFT-id's.
However, BIER architecture [RFC8279] does not require domain-wide-
unique BIFT-id's to be used (even for non-MPLS encapsulation). As
discussed in [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift], the BIFT-id in case of non-MPLS
encapsulation can also just be a local 20-bit opaque value and
signaled just like in MPLS case.
As an example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains a Sub-Domain
(SD) 0, supports two BitStringLengths (BSLs - 256 and 512), and
contains 1024 BIER Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs). Because the
number of BFERs is larger than the BSL, the BFERs are grouped into
different sets, and multiple copies of a packet may need to be sent
by an BIER Forwarding Ingress Router (BFIR) - one for each set. Each
set has a Set Identifier (SI), and one BIFT is needed for each <SD,
BSL, SI>. A BIER Forwarding Router (BFR) that is provisioned for the
above SD, and that supports both BSLs, could advertise the following
set of BIFT-id's:
BIFT-id 1: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0.
BIFT-id 2: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1.
BIFT-id 3: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2.
BIFT-id 4: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3.
BIFT-id 5: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0.
BIFT-id 6: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1.
Notice that the example uses ranges of continuous BIFT-id's:
BIFT-id range [1 to 4] correspond to <SD 0, BSL 256>. The first
BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to
SI=1, and so on.
BIFT-id range [5 to 6] correspond to <SD 0, BSL 512>. The first
BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to
SI=1.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
Strictly speaking, using contiguous range is not required, but it is
done for the purpose of simplified signaling similar to MPLS label
blocks (notice that locally assigning BIFT-id ranges requires no
manual processing just like in the case of MPLS label block
allocation).
Processing and forwarding of BIER packets requires special software
and hardware capabilities. The BFRs supporting a BIER encapsulation
type MUST advertise this capability along with the required
parameters specific to the encapsulation to the other routers in BIER
domain. This advertisements are used by other BFRs to calculate the
BIFTs for a specific encapsulation type.
[RFC8401], [RFC8444] and [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] specifies
the required extensions to the IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and
OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols respectively for the distribution of BIER
sub-domain information including the Sub-sub-TLVs required to support
BIER in MPLS encapsulation for MPLS networks.
This document specifies the required similar extensions to the IS-IS
[RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols for
supporting BIER non-MPLS encapsulation with dynamically and locally
assigned BIFT-id's.
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.
3. Specification
This document updates section 2.2.1.1 of [RFC8296] that the BIFT-id
in case of non-MPLS encapsulation need not be unique throughout the
BIER domain and can change as the packet travels.
A BIER sub-domain MAY use both MPLS and non-MPLS BIER encapsulation.
The assignment of BFR-id in a sub-domain is independent of the
encapsulation type. This allows this same bit string to be used
regardless of the encapsulation types used to reach BFERs.
When a BFIR/BFR supports multiple BIER encapsulation types, when
sending to a BIER neighbor it MUST use a type that the neighbor also
supports. If the neighbor also supports more than one encapsulation
type that this BFIR/BFR supports, the type selection could be a
matter of local policy and is outside the scope of this document.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
The procedures in [RFC8401] and [RFC8444] apply to non-MPLS
encapsulation, except the encoding and procedure differences
specified below.
3.1. IS-IS BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV
As specified in [RFC8401] and updated in [RFC9272], BIER Info sub-TLV
is used to advertise BIER information except that its MPLS
Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV is replaced with a new non-MPLS
Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV specified as following.
The BIER Info sub-TLV is carried within the TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120]
or TLVs 135 [RFC5305], or TLV 236 [RFC5308]. Its non-MPLS
Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER non-
MPLS encapsulation and is very similar to the MPLS Encapsulation sub-
sub-TLV.
When a prefix reachability advertisement is leaked between levels, if
it has a BIER sub-TLV with non-zero BFR-id the BIER sub-TLV MUST be
included but its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV MAY be omitted.
The non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times
within a single BIER Info sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is
repeated in multiple BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs inside
the same BIER Info sub-TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI |BS Len | BIFT-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD1 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 4
Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER
subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0,
the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with
the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV
MUST be ignored.
Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation.
BIFT-id: A 20 bit field encoding the first BIFT-id of the BIFT-id
range.
The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the
BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are
used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for
SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc.
If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds
the 20-bit range, the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-
TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is
detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not
advertise any BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the
BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and
is allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the non-MPLS
encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the
Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8401] and is
allowed.
3.2. OSPFv2 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV
As specified in [RFC8444] and updated in [RFC9272], BIER Sub-TLV is
used to advertise BIER information except that its MPLS Encapsulation
sub-TLV is replaced with a new non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV
specified as following.
The BIER sub-TLV [RFC8444] is carried within the OSPFv2 Extended
Prefix TLV [RFC7684]. Its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV carries
information for the BIER non-MPLS encapsulation, and is very similar
to MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV.
When a prefix reachability is re-advertised into other areas, if it
has a BIER sub-TLVs with a non-zero BFR-id the BIER sub-TLV MUST be
included but its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV MAY be omitted.
The non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a
single BIER Sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is repeated in
multiple BIER non-MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER
Sub-TLV, the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI | BIFT-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|BS Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD2 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 8
Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER
subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0,
the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with
the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV
MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the
first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be
ignored.
The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the
BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are
used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for
SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc.
If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds
the 20-bit range, the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-
TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is
detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not
advertise any BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the
BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and
is allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the non-MPLS
encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the
Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8444] and is
allowed.
Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the
bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception.
3.3. OSPFv3 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV
As specified in [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions], BIER Sub-TLV is
used to advertise BIER information except that its MPLS Encapsulation
sub-TLV is replaced with a new non-MPLS encapsulation sub-TLV
specified as following.
The BIER Sub-TLV is carried within the Intra-Area-Prefix TLV or
Inter-Area-Prefix TLV in OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLV defined in
[RFC8362]. its non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV carries information
for the BIER non-MPLS encapsulation, and is very similar to the MPLS
Encapsulation sub-TLV.
When a prefix reachability is re-advertised into other areas, if it
has a BIER sub-TLVs with a non-zero BFR-id the BIER sub-TLV MUST be
included but its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV MAY be omitted.
The non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a
single BIER Sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is repeated in
multiple BIER non-MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER
Sub-TLV, the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI | BIFT-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|BS Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD3 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 8
Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER
subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0,
the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with
the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV
MUST be ignored.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the
first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be
ignored.
The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the
BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are
used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for
SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc.
If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds
the 20-bit range, the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-
TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is
detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not
advertise any BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the
BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and
is allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the non-MPLS
encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the
Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV
([I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] and is allowed.
Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the
bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation.
Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception.
4. Security Considerations
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]
and the security concerns for IS-IS extensions for BIER are addressed
in [RFC8401]. This document introduces new sub-sub-TLV for the
already existing IS-IS TLVs defined for distributing the BIER sub-
domain information in [RFC8401]. It does not introduce any new
security risks to IS-IS.
Security concerns and required extensions for OSPFv2 are addressed in
[RFC2328] and [RFC7684] and the security concerns for OSPFv2
extensions for BIER are addressed in [RFC8444]. This document
introduces new Sub-TLV for the already existing OSPFv2 TLV defined
for distributing the BIER sub-domain information in [RFC8444]. It
does not introduce any new security risks to OSPFv2.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
5. IANA Considerations
The document requests new allocations from the IANA registries as
follows
5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry
BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV: TBD1 (suggested value 2)
5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry
BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD2 (suggested value 11)
5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry
BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD3 (suggested value 11)
6. Acknowledgments
The author wants to thank Antonie Przygienda for his comments and
suggestions.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8401] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z.
Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via
IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8401>.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
[RFC8444] Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2
Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)",
RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8444>.
[RFC9272] Zhang, Z., Przygienda, T., Dolganow, A., Bidgoli, H.,
Wijnands, IJ., and A. Gulko, "Underlay Path Calculation
Algorithm and Constraints for Bit Index Explicit
Replication (BIER)", RFC 9272, DOI 10.17487/RFC9272,
September 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9272>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding]
Wijnands, I., Mishra, M., Xu, X., and H. Bidgoli, "An
Optional Encoding of the BIFT-id Field in the non-MPLS
BIER Encapsulation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-04, 30 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-non-mpls-
bift-encoding-04.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions]
Psenak, P., Nainar, N. K., and I. Wijnands, "OSPFv3
Extensions for BIER", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-05, 19 November 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-
extensions-05.txt>.
[I-D.zzhang-bier-rift]
Zhang, Z., Ma, S., and Z. Zhang, "Supporting BIER with
RIFT", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zzhang-
bier-rift-00, 5 March 2018,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-zzhang-bier-rift-
00.txt>.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[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>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[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>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
Authors' Addresses
Senthil Dhanaraj
Huawei
Email: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com
Gang Yan
Huawei
Email: yangang@huawei.com
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS September 2022
IJsbrand Wijnands
Individual
Email: ice@braindump.be
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Zhaohui Zhang (editor)
Juniper Networks.
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Jingrong Xie
Huawei
Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 23 March 2023 [Page 13]
