idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8296, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 08, 2019) is 1747 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-00 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force S. Dhanaraj, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Updates: 8296 (if approved) IJ. Wijnands 5 Intended status: Standards Track P. Psenak 6 Expires: January 9, 2020 Cisco Systems, Inc. 7 Z. Zhang 8 Juniper Networks. 9 G. Yan 10 J. Xie 11 Huawei 12 July 08, 2019 14 LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet 15 draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-01 17 Abstract 19 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that 20 provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without 21 requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow 22 state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks. 24 This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS, OSPFv2 25 and OSPFv3 protocols for supporting BIER in non-MPLS networks using 26 BIER in Ethernet encapsulation. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 3.1. IS-IS BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV . . . . . . 5 67 3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 7 68 3.3. OSPFv3 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8 69 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry . . . . 10 72 5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . 10 73 5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 1. Introduction 82 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is an architecture 83 that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without 84 requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow 85 state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks. 87 [RFC8296] specifies a common BIER header format for both MPLS and 88 non-MPLS networks, though the first 20-bits of the BIER header 89 (referred as BIFT-id) is a "MPLS Label" in case of MPLS networks and 90 is a "domain-wide-unique-value" representing the combination of SD- 91 BSL-SI in case of non-MPLS networks. 92 [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] specifies two optional ways of 93 statically assigning domain-wide-unique mapping between BIFT-id's and 94 SD-BSL-SI combination. 96 However, BIER architecture [RFC8279] does not require domain-wide- 97 unique BIFT-id's to be used (even for non-MPLS encapsulation). As 98 discussed in [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift], the BIFT-id in case of non-MPLS 99 encapsulation can also just be a local 20-bit opaque value and 100 signaled just like in MPLS case. This doucment updates section 101 2.2.1.1 of [RFC8296] that the BIFT-id for a SD-BSL-SI in case of non- 102 MPLS encapsulation need not be unique through out the BIER domain. 103 In such a case when the BIFT-id is not unique, the BIFT-id in the 104 packet is expected to change as the packet travels. 106 As an example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains a SD (SD 0), 107 supports two BSLs (256 and 512), and contains 1024 BFRs. A BFR that 108 is provisioned for above SD, and that supports both BSLs, could 109 advertise the following set of BIFT-id's: 111 BIFT-id 1: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0. 113 BIFT-id 2: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1. 115 BIFT-id 3: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2. 117 BIFT-id 4: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3. 119 BIFT-id 5: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0. 121 BIFT-id 6: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1. 123 Notice that the example uses ranges of continuous BIFT-id's: 125 BIFT-id range [1 to 4] correspond to . The first 126 BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to 127 SI=1, and so on. 129 BIFT-id range [5 to 6] correspond to . The first 130 BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to 131 SI=1. 133 Strictly speaking, using contiguous range is not required, but it is 134 done for the purpose of simplified signaling similar to MPLS label 135 blocks (notice that locally assigning BIFT-id ranges requires no 136 manual processing just like in the case of MPLS label block 137 allocation). 139 Processing and forwarding of BIER packets requires special software 140 and hardware capabilities. The BFRs supporting a BIER encapsulation 141 type MUST advertise this capability (along with the other required 142 parameters specific to the encapsulation) to the other routers in 143 BIER domain. This advertisement, for example, will enable the other 144 BFRs in the BIER domain in deciding, whether to include or exclude 145 the advertising router from the BAR and/or IPA algorithm while 146 computing the multicast path for a specific encapsulation type. 148 [RFC8401], [RFC8444] and [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] specifies 149 the required extensions to the IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and 150 OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols respectively for the distribution of BIER 151 sub-domain information including the Sub-sub-TLV required to support 152 BIER in MPLS encapsulation for MPLS networks. 154 This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS 155 [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols for 156 supporting BIER using BIER in Ethernet encapsulation with dynamically 157 and locally assigned BIFT-id's. 159 Support for other encapsulation types are outside the scope of this 160 document. 162 2. Terminology 164 Some of the terminology specified in [RFC8279] is replicated here and 165 extended by necessary definitions: 167 BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication 168 (The overall architecture of forwarding multicast using a Bit 169 Position). 171 BIER-MPLS: BIER in MPLS encapsulation. 172 (Encapsulation of BIER header inside MPLS header in MPLS 173 networks). 175 BIER-ETH: BIER in Ethernet encapsulation. 176 (Encapsulation of BIER header inside Ethernet header 177 (EtherType=0xAB37) in non-MPLS networks). 179 BFR: Bit Forwarding Router (A router that participates in Bit Index 180 Multipoint Forwarding). A BFR is identified by a unique BFR- 181 prefix in a BIER domain. 183 BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table used to forward the BIER packets in 184 a domain. 186 BAR: BIER Algorithm. Used to calculate underlay nexthops 187 as defined by the BAR value. 189 IPA: IGP Algorithm. May be used to modify, enhance or replace the 190 calculation of underlay paths as defined by the BAR value 192 SD: BIER sub-domain 194 2.1. Requirements Language 196 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 197 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 198 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 199 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 200 capitals, as shown here. 202 3. Specification 204 A BIER sub-domain MAY support multiple BIER encapsulation types like 205 BIER-MPLS, BIER-ETH. The different encapsulation types supported by 206 a BFR in a sub-domain MUST share the same BFR-id. This would allow 207 the BFR's in transit to translate the encapsulation from one type to 208 the other while forwarding the packet in the BIER sub-domain. 210 When a BFIR/BFR supports multiple BIER encapsulation types, when 211 sending to a BIER neighbor it MUST use a type that the neighbor also 212 supports. If the neighbor also supports more than one encapsulation 213 type that this BFIR/BFR supports, the type selection could be a 214 matter of local policy and is outside the scope of this document. 216 3.1. IS-IS BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV 218 BIER Info sub-TLV defined in [RFC8401] is used to advertise the sub- 219 domain id, and other associated parameters of the sub-domain like 220 BFR-id, MT, BAR, IPA. 222 This document introduces new sub-sub-TLV under BIER Info sub-TLV to 223 advertise the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated 224 parameters of the encapsulation. 226 This sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER Ethernet 227 encapsulation including the BitString length supported for a certain 228 pair. 230 It is advertised within the BIER Info sub-TLV defined in [RFC8401] 231 which in-turn is carried within the TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] or TLVs 232 135 [RFC5305], or TLV 236 [RFC5308]. 234 This sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER Info 235 sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER 236 Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs inside the same BIER Info sub- 237 TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be ignored. 239 0 1 2 3 240 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 1 241 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 242 | Type | Length | 243 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 244 | Max SI |BS Len | BIFT-id | 245 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 247 Type: TBD1 (To be assigned by IANA). 249 Length: 4 251 Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier 252 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER 253 subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, 254 the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with 255 the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV 256 MUST be ignored. 258 Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the 259 bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. 261 BIFT-id: A 20 bit field encoding the first BIFT-id of the BIFT-id 262 range. 264 The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the 265 BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are 266 used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. 268 The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's 269 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps 270 to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for 271 SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. 273 If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds 274 the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV 275 containing the error MUST be ignored. 277 BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub- 278 TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is 279 detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not 280 advertise any BIER Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the 281 BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and is 282 allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the Ethernet 283 encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the 284 Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8401] and is 285 allowed. 287 3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV 289 BIER Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8444] is used to advertise the sub-domain 290 id, and other associated parameters of the sub-domain like BFR-id, 291 MT, BAR, IPA. 293 This document introduces new Sub-TLV under BIER Sub-TLV to advertise 294 the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated parameters 295 of the encapsulation. 297 This Sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER Ethernet 298 encapsulation including the BitString length supported for a certain 299 pair. 301 It is advertised within the BIER Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8444] which 302 in-turn is carried within the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV defined in 303 [RFC7684]. 305 This Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER Sub-TLV. 306 If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER Ethernet 307 encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER Sub-TLV, the BIER Sub-TLV 308 MUST be ignored. 310 0 1 2 3 311 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 1 312 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 313 | Type | Length | 314 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 315 | Max SI | BIFT-id | 316 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 317 |BS Len | Reserved | 318 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 320 Type: TBD2 (To be assigned by IANA). 322 Length: 8 324 Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier 325 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER 326 subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, 327 the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with 328 the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV 329 MUST be ignored. 331 BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the 332 first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be 333 ignored. 335 The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the 336 BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are 337 used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. 339 The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's 340 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps 341 to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for 342 SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. 344 If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds 345 the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV 346 containing the error MUST be ignored. 348 BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub- 349 TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is 350 detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not 351 advertise any BIER Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the 352 BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and is 353 allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the Ethernet 354 encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the 355 Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8444] and is 356 allowed. 358 Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the 359 bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. 361 Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on 362 reception. 364 3.3. OSPFv3 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV 366 BIER Sub-TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] is used to 367 advertise the sub-domain id, and other associated parameters of the 368 sub-domain like BFR-id, MT, BAR, IPA. 370 This document introduces new Sub-TLV under BIER Sub-TLV to advertise 371 the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated parameters 372 of the encapsulation. 374 This Sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER Ethernet 375 encapsulation including the BitString length supported for a certain 376 pair. 378 It is advertised within the BIER Sub-TLV defined in 379 [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] which in-turn is carried 380 within the Intra-Area-Prefix TLV or Inter-Area-Prefix TLV in OSPFv2 381 Extended LSA TLV defined in [RFC8362]. 383 This Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER Sub-TLV. 384 If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER Ethernet 385 encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER Sub-TLV, the BIER Sub-TLV 386 MUST be ignored. 388 0 1 2 3 389 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 1 390 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 391 | Type | Length | 392 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 393 | Max SI | BIFT-id | 394 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 395 |BS Len | Reserved | 396 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 398 Type: TBD3 (To be assigned by IANA). 400 Length: 8 402 Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier 403 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER 404 subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, 405 the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with 406 the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV 407 MUST be ignored. 409 BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the 410 first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be 411 ignored. 413 The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the 414 BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are 415 used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. 417 The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's 418 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps 419 to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for 420 SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. 422 If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds 423 the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV 424 containing the error MUST be ignored. 426 BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub- 427 TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is 428 detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not 429 advertise any BIER Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the 430 BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and is 431 allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the Ethernet 432 encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the 433 Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV 434 ([I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] and is allowed. 436 Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the 437 bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. 439 Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on 440 reception. 442 4. Security Considerations 444 Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] 445 and the security concerns for IS-IS extensions for BIER are addressed 446 in [RFC8401]. This document introduces new sub-sub-TLV for the 447 already existing IS-IS TLVs defined for distributing the BIER sub- 448 domain information in [RFC8401]. It does not introduce any new 449 security risks to IS-IS. 451 Security concerns and required extensions for OSPFv2 are addressed in 452 [RFC2328] and [RFC7684] and the security concerns for OSPFv2 453 extensions for BIER are addressed in [RFC8444]. This document 454 introduces new Sub-TLV for the already existing OSPFv2 TLV defined 455 for distributing the BIER sub-domain information in [RFC8444]. It 456 does not introduce any new security risks to OSPFv2. 458 5. IANA Considerations 460 The document requests new allocations from the IANA registries as 461 follows 463 5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry 465 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV: TBD1 (suggested value 2) 467 5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry 469 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD2 (suggested value 11) 471 5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry 473 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD3 (suggested value 11) 475 6. Acknowledgments 477 The author wants to thank Antonie Przygienda for his comments and 478 suggestions. 480 7. References 482 7.1. Normative References 484 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 485 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 486 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 487 . 489 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 490 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 491 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 492 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 493 . 495 [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 496 Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation 497 for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- 498 MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January 499 2018, . 501 [RFC8401] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. 502 Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via 503 IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018, 504 . 506 [RFC8444] Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A., 507 Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2 508 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", 509 RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018, 510 . 512 7.2. Informative References 514 [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] 515 Wijnands, I., Xu, X., and H. Bidgoli, "An Optional 516 Encoding of the BIFT-id Field in the non-MPLS BIER 517 Encapsulation", draft-ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-01 518 (work in progress), October 2018. 520 [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] 521 Psenak, P., Kumar, N., and I. Wijnands, "OSPFv3 Extensions 522 for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-00 (work in 523 progress), May 2019. 525 [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift] 526 Zhang, Z., Ma, S., and Z. Zhang, "Supporting BIER with 527 RIFT", draft-zzhang-bier-rift-00 (work in progress), March 528 2018. 530 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 531 dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, 532 December 1990, . 534 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 535 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 536 . 538 [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi 539 Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to 540 Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, 541 DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, 542 . 544 [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic 545 Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 546 2008, . 548 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 549 Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 550 2008, . 552 [RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, 553 DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008, 554 . 556 [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., 557 and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic 558 Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 559 2009, . 561 [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., 562 Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute 563 Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 564 2015, . 566 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 567 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 568 May 2017, . 570 [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and 571 F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) 572 Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April 573 2018, . 575 Authors' Addresses 577 Senthil Dhanaraj (editor) 578 Huawei 580 Email: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com 582 IJsbrand Wijnands 583 Cisco Systems, Inc. 585 Email: ice@cisco.com 587 Peter Psenak 588 Cisco Systems, Inc. 590 Email: ppsenak@cisco.com 592 Zhaohui Zhang 593 Juniper Networks. 595 Email: zzhang@juniper.net 597 Gang Yan 598 Huawei 600 Email: yangang@huawei.com 602 Jingrong Xie 603 Huawei 605 Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com