Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions
draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions
Network Working Group S. Dhanaraj, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Yan, Ed.
Updates: 8296 (if approved) Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track IJ. Wijnands
Expires: 27 August 2022 P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks.
J. Xie
Huawei
23 February 2022
LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet
draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-04
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 in Ethernet 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 27 August 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IS-IS BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV . . . . . . 5
3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 7
3.3. OSPFv3 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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 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 of the BIER header
(referred as BIFT-id) is a "MPLS Label" in case of MPLS networks and
is a "domain-wide-unique-value" representing the combination of SD-
BSL-SI in case of non-MPLS networks.
[I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] specifies two optional ways of
statically assigning domain-wide-unique mapping between BIFT-id's and
SD-BSL-SI combination.
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
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
encapsulation can also just be a local 20-bit opaque value and
signaled just like in MPLS case. This doucment updates section
2.2.1.1 of [RFC8296] that the BIFT-id for a SD-BSL-SI in case of non-
MPLS encapsulation need not be unique through out the BIER domain.
In such a case when the BIFT-id is not unique, the BIFT-id in the
packet is expected to change as the packet travels.
As an example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains a SD (SD 0),
supports two BSLs (256 and 512), and contains 1024 BFRs. A BFR that
is provisioned for 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.
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 other required
parameters specific to the encapsulation) to the other routers in
BIER domain. This advertisement, for example, will enable the other
BFRs in the BIER domain in deciding, whether to include or exclude
the advertising router from the BAR and/or IPA algorithm while
computing the multicast path for a specific encapsulation type.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
[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-TLV required to support
BIER in MPLS encapsulation for MPLS networks.
This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS
[RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols for
supporting BIER using BIER in Ethernet encapsulation with dynamically
and locally assigned BIFT-id's.
Support for other encapsulation types are outside the scope of this
document.
2. Terminology
Some of the terminology specified in [RFC8279] is replicated here and
extended by necessary definitions:
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication
(The overall architecture of forwarding multicast using a Bit
Position).
BIER-MPLS: BIER in MPLS encapsulation.
(Encapsulation of BIER header inside MPLS header in MPLS
networks).
BIER-ETH: BIER in Ethernet encapsulation.
(Encapsulation of BIER header inside Ethernet header
(EtherType=0xAB37) in non-MPLS networks).
BFR: Bit Forwarding Router (A router that participates in Bit Index
Multipoint Forwarding). A BFR is identified by a unique BFR-
prefix in a BIER domain.
BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table used to forward the BIER packets in
a domain.
BAR: BIER Algorithm. Used to calculate underlay nexthops
as defined by the BAR value.
IPA: IGP Algorithm. May be used to modify, enhance or replace the
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
calculation of underlay paths as defined by the BAR value
SD: BIER sub-domain
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Specification
A BIER sub-domain MAY support multiple BIER encapsulation types like
BIER-MPLS, BIER-ETH. The different encapsulation types supported by
a BFR in a sub-domain MUST share the same BFR-id. This would allow
the BFR's in transit to translate the encapsulation from one type to
the other while forwarding the packet in the BIER sub-domain.
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.
3.1. IS-IS BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV
BIER Info sub-TLV defined in [RFC8401] is used to advertise the sub-
domain id, and other associated parameters of the sub-domain like
BFR-id, MT, BAR, IPA.
This document introduces new sub-sub-TLV under BIER Info sub-TLV to
advertise the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated
parameters of the encapsulation.
This sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER Ethernet
encapsulation including the BitString length supported for a certain
<MT,SD> pair.
It is advertised within the BIER Info sub-TLV defined in [RFC8401]
which in-turn is carried within the TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] or TLVs
135 [RFC5305], or TLV 236 [RFC5308].
This sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER Info
sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER
Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs inside the same BIER Info sub-
TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 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 |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
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 Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet 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 Ethernet 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 Ethernet
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.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV
BIER Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8444] is used to advertise the sub-domain
id, and other associated parameters of the sub-domain like BFR-id,
MT, BAR, IPA.
This document introduces new Sub-TLV under BIER Sub-TLV to advertise
the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated parameters
of the encapsulation.
This Sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER Ethernet
encapsulation including the BitString length supported for a certain
<MT,SD> pair.
It is advertised within the BIER Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8444] which
in-turn is carried within the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV defined in
[RFC7684].
This Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER Sub-TLV.
If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER Ethernet
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: 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
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
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 Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet 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 Ethernet 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 Ethernet
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.
Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception.
3.3. OSPFv3 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV
BIER Sub-TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] is used to
advertise the sub-domain id, and other associated parameters of the
sub-domain like BFR-id, MT, BAR, IPA.
This document introduces new Sub-TLV under BIER Sub-TLV to advertise
the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated parameters
of the encapsulation.
This Sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER Ethernet
encapsulation including the BitString length supported for a certain
<MT,SD> pair.
It is advertised within the BIER Sub-TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] which in-turn is carried
within the Intra-Area-Prefix TLV or Inter-Area-Prefix TLV in OSPFv2
Extended LSA TLV defined in [RFC8362].
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
This Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER Sub-TLV.
If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER Ethernet
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.
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 Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
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 Ethernet 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 Ethernet
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.
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 Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV: TBD1 (suggested value 2)
5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry
BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD2 (suggested value 11)
5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry
BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD3 (suggested value 11)
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
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>.
[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>.
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>.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
[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>.
[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>.
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet February 2022
[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 (editor)
Huawei
Email: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com
Gang Yan (editor)
Huawei
Email: yangang@huawei.com
IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: ice@cisco.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks.
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Jingrong Xie
Huawei
Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com
Dhanaraj, et al. Expires 27 August 2022 [Page 13]
