draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-08.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-09.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed. Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track K. Talaulikar Intended status: Standards Track K. Talaulikar
Expires: November 24, 2018 C. Filsfils Expires: April 13, 2019 C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
May 23, 2018 October 10, 2018
BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-08 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-09
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called
"segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols e.g. "segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols e.g.
by the link state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) within by the link state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) within
IGP topologies. IGP topologies.
This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. BGP-LS Extensions for Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Node Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Node Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. SR-Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2. SR-Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3. SR-Algorithm TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.3. SR-Algorithm TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.4. SR Local Block TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.4. SR Local Block TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.5. SRMS Preference TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1.5. SRMS Preference TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2. Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2. Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1. Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.1. Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.2. LAN Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.2. LAN Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.3. L2 Bundle Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.3. L2 Bundle Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1. Prefix-SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.3.1. Prefix-SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2. Prefix Attribute Flags TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3.2. Prefix Attribute Flags TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.3. Source Router Identifier (Source Router-ID) TLV . . . 16 2.3.3. Source Router Identifier (Source Router-ID) TLV . . . 17
2.3.4. Range TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.4. Range TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4. Equivalent IS-IS Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs . . . . . 18 2.4. Equivalent IS-IS Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs . . . . . 19
2.5. Equivalent OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs . 19 2.5. Equivalent OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs . 20
3. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 24 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are
advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2 and advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3). OSPFv3).
Two types of IGP segments are defined, Prefix segments and Adjacency Two types of IGP segments are defined, Prefix segments and Adjacency
segments. Prefix segments, by default, represent an ECMP-aware segments. Prefix segments, by default, represent an ECMP-aware
shortest-path to a prefix, as per the state of the IGP topology. shortest-path to a prefix, as per the state of the IGP topology.
Adjacency segments represent a hop over a specific adjacency between Adjacency segments represent a hop over a specific adjacency between
two nodes in the IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path two nodes in the IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path
while an adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. while an adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. [RFC8402].
When Segment Routing is enabled in a IGP domain, segments are When Segment Routing is enabled in a IGP domain, segments are
advertised in the form of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). The IGP link- advertised in the form of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). The IGP link-
state routing protocols have been extended to advertise SIDs and state routing protocols have been extended to advertise SIDs and
other SR-related information. IGP extensions are described in: IS-IS other SR-related information. IGP extensions are described in: IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPFv2 [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPFv2
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and OSPFv3 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and OSPFv3
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. Using these [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. Using these
extensions, Segment Routing can be enabled within an IGP domain. extensions, Segment Routing can be enabled within an IGP domain.
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
| SID/Label (variable) | | SID/Label (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Type: TBD, see Section 4. Type: TBD, see Section 4.
Length: Variable, 3 or 4. Length: Variable, 3 or 4.
SID/Label: If length is set to 3, then the 20 rightmost bits SID/Label: If length is set to 3, then the 20 rightmost bits
represent a label. If length is set to 4, then the value represent a label (the total TLV size is 7). If length is set to
represents a 32 bit SID. 4, then the value represents a 32 bit SID (the total TLV size is
8).
The receiving router MUST ignore the SID/Label sub-TLV if the The receiving router MUST ignore the SID/Label sub-TLV if the
length is other then 3 or 4. length is other then 3 or 4.
2.1.2. SR-Capabilities TLV 2.1.2. SR-Capabilities TLV
The SR-Capabilities TLV is used in order to advertise the node's SR The SR-Capabilities TLV is used in order to advertise the node's SR
Capabilities and its Segment Routing Global Base (SRGB) range(s). Capabilities including its Segment Routing Global Base (SRGB)
range(s). In the case of IS-IS, the capabilities also include the
This information is derived from the protocol specific IPv4 and IPv6 support for SR-MPLS forwarding plane. This information
advertisements. is derived from the protocol specific advertisements.
o IS-IS, as defined by the SR-Capabilities TLV in o IS-IS, as defined by the SR-Capabilities sub-TLV in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SID/Label Range TLV in o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SID/Label Range TLV in
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
The SR Capabilities TLV has following format: The SR Capabilities TLV has following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 7 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
One or more entries, each of which have the following format: One or more entries, each of which have the following format:
Range Size: 3 octet value indicating the number of labels in Range Size: 3 octet value indicating the number of labels in
the range. the range.
SID/Label sub-TLV (as defined in Section 2.1.1) which encodes SID/Label sub-TLV (as defined in Section 2.1.1) which encodes
the first label in the range. the first label in the range.
2.1.3. SR-Algorithm TLV 2.1.3. SR-Algorithm TLV
The SR-Algorithm TLV is used in order to advertise the SR Algorithms
supported by the node. This information is derived from the protocol
specific advertisements.
o IS-IS, as defined by the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SR-Algorithm TLV in
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
The SR-Algorithm TLV has the following format: The SR-Algorithm TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Algorithm 1 | Algorithm... | Algorithm N | | | Algorithm 1 | Algorithm... | Algorithm N | |
+- -+ +- -+
| | | |
skipping to change at page 8, line 38 skipping to change at page 8, line 49
The SR Local Block (SRLB) TLV contains the range(s) of labels the The SR Local Block (SRLB) TLV contains the range(s) of labels the
node has reserved for local SIDs. Local SIDs are used, e.g., in IGP node has reserved for local SIDs. Local SIDs are used, e.g., in IGP
(IS-IS, OSPF) for Adjacency-SIDs, and may also be allocated by (IS-IS, OSPF) for Adjacency-SIDs, and may also be allocated by
components other than IGP protocols. As an example, an application components other than IGP protocols. As an example, an application
or a controller may instruct a node to allocate a specific local SID. or a controller may instruct a node to allocate a specific local SID.
Therefore, in order for such applications or controllers to know the Therefore, in order for such applications or controllers to know the
range of local SIDs available, it is required that the node range of local SIDs available, it is required that the node
advertises its SRLB. advertises its SRLB.
This information is derived from the protocol specific
advertisements.
o IS-IS, as defined by the SR Local Block sub-TLV in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SR Local Block TLV in
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
The SRLB TLV has the following format: The SRLB TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved | | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 49
Range Size: 3 octet value indicating the number of labels in Range Size: 3 octet value indicating the number of labels in
the range. the range.
SID/Label sub-TLV (as defined in Section 2.1.1) which encodes SID/Label sub-TLV (as defined in Section 2.1.1) which encodes
the first label in the range. the first label in the range.
2.1.5. SRMS Preference TLV 2.1.5. SRMS Preference TLV
The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference TLV is used in The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference TLV is used in
order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a
particular source. particular source. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
specifies the SRMS functionality along with SRMS preference of the
node advertising the SRMS Prefix-to-SID Mapping ranges.
This information is derived from the protocol specific
advertisements.
o IS-IS, as defined by the SRMS Preference sub-TLV in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SRMS Preference TLV in
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
The SRMS Preference TLV has following format: The SRMS Preference TLV has following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference | | Preference |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 10, line 28 skipping to change at page 11, line 12
Table 2: Link Attribute TLVs Table 2: Link Attribute TLVs
These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Link Attribute associated with These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Link Attribute associated with
the link whose local node originates the corresponding underlying IGP the link whose local node originates the corresponding underlying IGP
TLV/sub-TLV described below. TLV/sub-TLV described below.
For a LAN, normally a node only announces its adjacency to the IS-IS For a LAN, normally a node only announces its adjacency to the IS-IS
pseudo-node (or the equivalent OSPF Designated and Backup Designated pseudo-node (or the equivalent OSPF Designated and Backup Designated
Routers)[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. The LAN Routers)[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. The LAN
Adjecency Segment TLV allows a node to announce adjacencies to all Adjacency Segment TLV allows a node to announce adjacencies to all
other nodes attached to the LAN in a single instance of the BGP-LS other nodes attached to the LAN in a single instance of the BGP-LS
Link NLRI. Without this TLV, the corresponding BGP-LS link NLRI Link NLRI. Without this TLV, the corresponding BGP-LS link NLRI
would need to be originated for each additional adjacency in order to would need to be originated for each additional adjacency in order to
advertise the SR TLVs for these neighbor adjacencies. advertise the SR TLVs for these neighbor adjacencies.
2.2.1. Adjacency SID TLV 2.2.1. Adjacency SID TLV
The Adjacency SID (Adj-SID) TLV has the following format: The Adjacency SID (Adj-SID) TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 22, line 36 skipping to change at page 22, line 36
5. Manageability Considerations 5. Manageability Considerations
This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706]. This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706].
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752]. existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752].
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as
discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752]. discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752].
Specifically the determination of malformed attributes and their Specifically, the malformed NLRIs attribute tests for syntactic
handling follow the base BGP-LS specification [RFC7752]. checks in the Fault Management section of [RFC7752] now encompass the
new TLVs for the BGP-LS NLRI in this document. The semantic or
content checking for the TLVs specified in this document and their
association with the BGP-LS NLRI types or their BGP-LS Attribute is
left to the consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g. an application
or a controller) and not the BGP protocol.
5.1. Operational Considerations 5.1. Operational Considerations
No additional operation considerations are defined in this document. No additional operation considerations are defined in this document.
5.2. Management Considerations 5.2. Management Considerations
No additional management considerations are defined in this document. No additional management considerations are defined in this document.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 23, line 45 skipping to change at page 23, line 51
review of this document and their comments. review of this document and their comments.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp]
Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and C. Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and C.
Filsfils, "BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Filsfils, "BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering
Performance Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-te-pm- Performance Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-
bgp-10 (work in progress), March 2018. bgp-13 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-16 (work in progress), April segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July
2018. 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
segment-routing-extensions-12 (work in progress), April segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), August
2018. 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018. routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
skipping to change at page 25, line 17 skipping to change at page 25, line 17
and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>. March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and
S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11 (work in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15 (work in
progress), April 2018. progress), September 2018.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009, RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
9.3. URIs 9.3. URIs
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-16#section-3.1 extensions-16#section-3.1
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-16#section-3.2 extensions-16#section-3.2
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-16#section-3.3 extensions-16#section-3.3
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 78 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/