idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (1 March 2022) is 779 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-10 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 BIER S. Dhanaraj 3 Internet-Draft G. Yan 4 Updates: 8296 (if approved) Huawei 5 Intended status: Standards Track I. Wijnands 6 Expires: 2 September 2022 Individual 7 P. Psenak 8 Cisco Systems, Inc. 9 Z. Zhang, Ed. 10 Juniper Networks. 11 J. Xie 12 Huawei 13 1 March 2022 15 LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation 16 draft-ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions-00 18 Abstract 20 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that 21 provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without 22 requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow 23 state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks. 25 This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS, OSPFv2 26 and OSPFv3 protocols for supporting BIER in non-MPLS networks using 27 BIER non-MPLS encapsulation. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 September 2022. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 53 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 54 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 55 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 56 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 57 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 58 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 3.1. IS-IS BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV . . . . . . 5 66 3.2. OSPFv2 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 6 67 3.3. OSPFv3 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8 68 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry . . . . 10 71 5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . 10 72 5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 1. Introduction 81 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is an architecture 82 that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without 83 requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow 84 state. BIER specific forwarding state, while not per-flow, are 85 maintained in Bit Index Forwarding Tables (BIFTs) and used to forward 86 BIER-encapsulated packets. 88 BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks. [RFC8296] 89 specifies a common BIER header format for both MPLS and non-MPLS 90 networks, though the first 20-bits (referred to as BIFT-id) of the 91 BIER header is an "MPLS Label" in case of MPLS networks and is a 92 "domain-wide unique value" in case of non-MPLS networks. It 93 identifies the BIFT used to forwarding the packet. 94 [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] specifies two optional ways of 95 statically assigning domain-wide unique BIFT-id's. 97 However, BIER architecture [RFC8279] does not require domain-wide- 98 unique BIFT-id's to be used (even for non-MPLS encapsulation). As 99 discussed in [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift], the BIFT-id in case of non-MPLS 100 encapsulation can also just be a local 20-bit opaque value and 101 signaled just like in MPLS case. 103 As an example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains a Sub-Domain 104 (SD) 0, supports two BitStringLengths (BSLs - 256 and 512), and 105 contains 1024 BIER Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs). Because the 106 number of BFERs is larger than the BSL, the BFERs are grouped into 107 different sets, and multiple copies of a packet may need to be sent 108 by an BIER Forwarding Ingress Router (BFIR) - one for each set. Each 109 set has a Set Identifier (SI), and one BIFT is needed for each . A BIER Forwarding Router (BFR) that is provisioned for the 111 above SD, and that supports both BSLs, could advertise the following 112 set of BIFT-id's: 114 BIFT-id 1: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0. 116 BIFT-id 2: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1. 118 BIFT-id 3: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2. 120 BIFT-id 4: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3. 122 BIFT-id 5: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0. 124 BIFT-id 6: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1. 126 Notice that the example uses ranges of continuous BIFT-id's: 128 BIFT-id range [1 to 4] correspond to . The first 129 BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to 130 SI=1, and so on. 132 BIFT-id range [5 to 6] correspond to . The first 133 BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to 134 SI=1. 136 Strictly speaking, using contiguous range is not required, but it is 137 done for the purpose of simplified signaling similar to MPLS label 138 blocks (notice that locally assigning BIFT-id ranges requires no 139 manual processing just like in the case of MPLS label block 140 allocation). 142 Processing and forwarding of BIER packets requires special software 143 and hardware capabilities. The BFRs supporting a BIER encapsulation 144 type MUST advertise this capability along with the required 145 parameters specific to the encapsulation to the other routers in BIER 146 domain. This advertisements are used by other BFRs to calculate the 147 BIFTs for a specific encapsulation type. 149 [RFC8401], [RFC8444] and [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] specifies 150 the required extensions to the IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and 151 OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols respectively for the distribution of BIER 152 sub-domain information including the Sub-sub-TLVs required to support 153 BIER in MPLS encapsulation for MPLS networks. 155 This document specifies the required similar extensions to the IS-IS 156 [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols for 157 supporting BIER non-MPLS encapsulation with dynamically and locally 158 assigned BIFT-id's. 160 2. Requirements Language 162 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 163 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 164 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 165 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 166 capitals, as shown here. 168 3. Specification 170 This document updates section 2.2.1.1 of [RFC8296] that the BIFT-id 171 in case of non-MPLS encapsulation need not be unique throughout the 172 BIER domain and can change as the packet travels. 174 A BIER sub-domain MAY use both MPLS and non-MPLS BIER encapsulation. 175 The assignment of BFR-id in a sub-domain is independent of the 176 encapsulation type. This allows this same bit string to be used 177 regardless of the encapsulation types used to reach BFERs. 179 When a BFIR/BFR supports multiple BIER encapsulation types, when 180 sending to a BIER neighbor it MUST use a type that the neighbor also 181 supports. If the neighbor also supports more than one encapsulation 182 type that this BFIR/BFR supports, the type selection could be a 183 matter of local policy and is outside the scope of this document. 185 The procedures in [RFC8401] and [RFC8444] apply to non-MPLS 186 encapsulation, except the encoding and procedure differences 187 specified below. 189 3.1. IS-IS BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV 191 As specified in [RFC8401] and updated in [I-D.ietf-bier-bar-ipa], 192 BIER Info sub-TLV is used to advertise BIER information except that 193 its MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV is replaced with a new non-MPLS 194 Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV specified as following. 196 The BIER Info sub-TLV is carried within the TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] 197 or TLVs 135 [RFC5305], or TLV 236 [RFC5308]. Its non-MPLS 198 Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER non- 199 MPLS encapsulation and is very similar to the MPLS Encapsulation sub- 200 sub-TLV. 202 When a prefix reachability advertisement is leaked between levels, if 203 it has a BIER sub-TLV with non-zero BFR-id the BIER sub-TLV MUST be 204 included but its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV MAY be omitted. 206 The non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times 207 within a single BIER Info sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is 208 repeated in multiple BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs inside 209 the same BIER Info sub-TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be ignored. 211 0 1 2 3 212 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 1 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 | Type | Length | 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 | Max SI |BS Len | BIFT-id | 217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 Type: TBD1 (To be assigned by IANA). 221 Length: 4 223 Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier 224 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER 225 subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, 226 the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with 227 the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV 228 MUST be ignored. 230 Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the 231 bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. 233 BIFT-id: A 20 bit field encoding the first BIFT-id of the BIFT-id 234 range. 235 The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the 236 BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are 237 used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. 238 The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's 239 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps 240 to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for 241 SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. 242 If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds 243 the 20-bit range, the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV 244 containing the error MUST be ignored. 245 BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub- 246 TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is 247 detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not 248 advertise any BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the 249 BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and 250 is allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the non-MPLS 251 encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the 252 Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8401] and is 253 allowed. 255 3.2. OSPFv2 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV 257 As specified in [RFC8444] and updated in [I-D.ietf-bier-bar-ipa], 258 BIER Sub-TLV is used to advertise BIER information except that its 259 MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV is replaced with a new non-MPLS 260 Encapsulation sub-TLV specified as following. 262 The BIER sub-TLV [RFC8444] is carried within the OSPFv2 Extended 263 Prefix TLV [RFC7684]. Its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV carries 264 information for the BIER non-MPLS encapsulation, and is very similar 265 to MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV. 267 When a prefix reachability is re-advertised into other areas, if it 268 has a BIER sub-TLVs with a non-zero BFR-id the BIER sub-TLV MUST be 269 included but its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV MAY be omitted. 271 The non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a 272 single BIER Sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is repeated in 273 multiple BIER non-MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER 274 Sub-TLV, the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. 276 0 1 2 3 277 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 1 278 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 279 | Type | Length | 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 281 | Max SI | BIFT-id | 282 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 283 |BS Len | Reserved | 284 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 286 Type: TBD2 (To be assigned by IANA). 288 Length: 8 290 Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier 291 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER 292 subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, 293 the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with 294 the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV 295 MUST be ignored. 297 BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the 298 first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be 299 ignored. 300 The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the 301 BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are 302 used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. 303 The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's 304 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps 305 to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for 306 SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. 307 If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds 308 the 20-bit range, the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV 309 containing the error MUST be ignored. 310 BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub- 311 TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is 312 detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not 313 advertise any BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the 314 BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and 315 is allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the non-MPLS 316 encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the 317 Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8444] and is 318 allowed. 320 Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the 321 bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. 323 Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on 324 reception. 326 3.3. OSPFv3 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV 328 As specified in [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions], BIER Sub-TLV is 329 used to advertise BIER information except that its MPLS Encapsulation 330 sub-TLV is replaced with a new non-MPLS encapsulation sub-TLV 331 specified as following. 333 The BIER Sub-TLV is carried within the Intra-Area-Prefix TLV or 334 Inter-Area-Prefix TLV in OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLV defined in 335 [RFC8362]. its non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV carries information 336 for the BIER non-MPLS encapsulation, and is very similar to the MPLS 337 Encapsulation sub-TLV. 339 When a prefix reachability is re-advertised into other areas, if it 340 has a BIER sub-TLVs with a non-zero BFR-id the BIER sub-TLV MUST be 341 included but its non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV MAY be omitted. 343 The non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a 344 single BIER Sub-TLV. If the same BitString length is repeated in 345 multiple BIER non-MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER 346 Sub-TLV, the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. 348 0 1 2 3 349 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 1 350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 351 | Type | Length | 352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 353 | Max SI | BIFT-id | 354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 355 |BS Len | Reserved | 356 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 358 Type: TBD3 (To be assigned by IANA). 360 Length: 8 362 Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier 363 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER 364 subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, 365 the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with 366 the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV 367 MUST be ignored. 369 BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the 370 first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be 371 ignored. 372 The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the 373 BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are 374 used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. 375 The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's 376 (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps 377 to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for 378 SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. 379 If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds 380 the 20-bit range, the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV 381 containing the error MUST be ignored. 382 BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub- 383 TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is 384 detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not 385 advertise any BIER non-MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the 386 BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and 387 is allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the non-MPLS 388 encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the 389 Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV 390 ([I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] and is allowed. 392 Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the 393 bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. 395 Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on 396 reception. 398 4. Security Considerations 400 Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] 401 and the security concerns for IS-IS extensions for BIER are addressed 402 in [RFC8401]. This document introduces new sub-sub-TLV for the 403 already existing IS-IS TLVs defined for distributing the BIER sub- 404 domain information in [RFC8401]. It does not introduce any new 405 security risks to IS-IS. 407 Security concerns and required extensions for OSPFv2 are addressed in 408 [RFC2328] and [RFC7684] and the security concerns for OSPFv2 409 extensions for BIER are addressed in [RFC8444]. This document 410 introduces new Sub-TLV for the already existing OSPFv2 TLV defined 411 for distributing the BIER sub-domain information in [RFC8444]. It 412 does not introduce any new security risks to OSPFv2. 414 5. IANA Considerations 416 The document requests new allocations from the IANA registries as 417 follows 419 5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry 421 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV: TBD1 (suggested value 2) 423 5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry 425 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD2 (suggested value 11) 427 5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry 429 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD3 (suggested value 11) 431 6. Acknowledgments 433 The author wants to thank Antonie Przygienda for his comments and 434 suggestions. 436 7. References 438 7.1. Normative References 440 [I-D.ietf-bier-bar-ipa] 441 Zhang, Z., Przygienda, A., Dolganow, A., Bidgoli, H., 442 Wijnands, I., and A. Gulko, "BIER Underlay Path 443 Calculation Algorithm and Constraints", Work in Progress, 444 Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-10, 1 February 445 2022, . 448 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 449 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 450 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 451 . 453 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 454 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 455 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 456 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 457 . 459 [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 460 Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation 461 for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- 462 MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January 463 2018, . 465 [RFC8401] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. 466 Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via 467 IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018, 468 . 470 [RFC8444] Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A., 471 Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2 472 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", 473 RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018, 474 . 476 7.2. Informative References 478 [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] 479 Wijnands, I., Mishra, M., Xu, X., and H. Bidgoli, "An 480 Optional Encoding of the BIFT-id Field in the non-MPLS 481 BIER Encapsulation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, 482 draft-ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-04, 30 May 2021, 483 . 486 [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] 487 Psenak, P., Nainar, N. K., and I. Wijnands, "OSPFv3 488 Extensions for BIER", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, 489 draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-05, 19 November 2021, 490 . 493 [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift] 494 Zhang, Z., Ma, S., and Z. Zhang, "Supporting BIER with 495 RIFT", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zzhang- 496 bier-rift-00, 5 March 2018, 497 . 500 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 501 dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, 502 December 1990, . 504 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 505 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 506 . 508 [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi 509 Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to 510 Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, 511 DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, 512 . 514 [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic 515 Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 516 2008, . 518 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 519 Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 520 2008, . 522 [RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, 523 DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008, 524 . 526 [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., 527 and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic 528 Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 529 2009, . 531 [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., 532 Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute 533 Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 534 2015, . 536 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 537 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 538 May 2017, . 540 [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and 541 F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) 542 Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April 543 2018, . 545 Authors' Addresses 547 Senthil Dhanaraj 548 Huawei 549 Email: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com 551 Gang Yan 552 Huawei 553 Email: yangang@huawei.com 554 IJsbrand Wijnands 555 Individual 556 Email: ice@braindump.be 558 Peter Psenak 559 Cisco Systems, Inc. 560 Email: ppsenak@cisco.com 562 Zhaohui Zhang (editor) 563 Juniper Networks. 564 Email: zzhang@juniper.net 566 Jingrong Xie 567 Huawei 568 Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com