wdiff rfc9351.original rfc9351.txt

Inter-Domain Routing

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Talaulikar, Ed.
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track
Request for Comments: 9351 P. Psenak
Expires: 26 February 2023
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Zandi
G. Dawra
LinkedIn
25 August 2022
February 2023

Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Flexible
Algorithm Advertisement using BGP Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-12

Abstract

Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows some routing protocols
(e.g., OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-
defined (and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The
computation is performed by routers participating in the specific
network in a distributed manner using a Flexible Algorithm
Definition. This Definition
(FAD). This definition is provisioned on one or more routers and
propagated through the network by OSPF and IS-IS flooding.

BGP Link-State

Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) enables the collection
of various topology information from the network. This document
defines extensions to the BGP-LS address family to advertise the Flexible Algorithm
Definition FAD
as a part of the topology information from the network.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 26 February 2023.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9351.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview of BGP-LS Extensions for Flexible Algorithm . . . . 4
3. Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Flexible Algorithm Exclude Any Exclude-Any Affinity Sub-TLV . . . . . 6
3.2. Flexible Algorithm Include Any Include-Any Affinity Sub-TLV . . . . . 6
3.3. Flexible Algorithm Include All Include-All Affinity Sub-TLV . . . . . 7
3.4. Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Flexible Algorithm Unsupported Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1.
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2.
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction

The classical IGP (e.g., OSPF and IS-IS) computation of best paths
over the network is based on the IGP metric assigned to the links in
the network. Many network deployments use RSVP-TE-based solutions based on RSVP-TE
[RFC3209] or Segment Routing (SR) Policy-based Policy [RFC8402] solutions to enforce traffic
over a path that is computed using different metrics or constraints
than the shortest IGP path. [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] [RFC9350] defines the Flexible Algorithm
solution that allows IGPs themselves to compute constraint based constraint-based
paths over the network.

Flexible Algorithm is so called so because it allows a user the
flexibility to define define:

* the type of calculation to be used (e.g., shortest path) path),

* the metric type to be used (e.g., IGP metric or TE metric) metric), and

* the set of constraints to be used (e.g., inclusion or exclusion of
certain links using affinities) affinities).

The operations of the IGP flexible algorithm Flexible Algorithm solution are described
in detail in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

The BGP-LS extensions for SR are defined in [RFC9085] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
[IDR-BGPLS-SRV6-EXT] for SR-MPLS and Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6), respectively. They include the extensions for advertisement
of SR information including various types of Segment Identifiers
(SIDs) as below:

* SR Algorithm TLV to indicate the participation of a node in a
flexible algorithm
Flexible Algorithm computation

* Prefix-SID TLV to indicate the association of the Prefix-SIDs to a
specific flexible algorithm Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS forwarding

* SRv6 Locator TLV to indicate the Locator for a specific flexible
algorithm Flexible
Algorithm for SRv6 forwarding

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for the advertisement of
the Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) information to enable
learning of the mapping of the flexible algorithm Flexible Algorithm number to its
Definition
definition in each area/domain of the underlying IGP. This
Definition
definition indicates the type of computation used and the constraints
for a given flexible algorithm. Flexible Algorithm. This information can then be used
for setting up SR Policy paths end to end across domains by using the
appropriate flexible algorithm-specific Flexible-Algorithm-specific SIDs in its Segment List segment list
[RFC9256]. For example, picking the flexible algorithm Prefix SID Flexible Algorithm Prefix-SID
(in case of SR-MPLS) or End SID (in case of SRv6) of Area Border
Routers (ABRs) or Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBRs)
corresponding to a Definition definition that optimizes on the delay metric
enables the building of an end to end low latency end-to-end low-latency path across IGP
domains with minimal SIDs in the SID list.

1.1. 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.

2. Overview of BGP-LS Extensions for Flexible Algorithm

BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Node Network Layer Reachability
Information (NLRI) for the advertisement of nodes nodes, along with their
attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute, Attribute; the Link NLRI for the
advertisement of links links, along with their attributes using the BGP-LS
Attribute
Attribute; and the Prefix NLRI for the advertisement of prefixes prefixes,
along with their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute.

The FADs advertised by a node are considered as a node-level
attribute and advertised as specified in Section 3.

Various link attributes attributes, like affinities and Shared Risk Link Group
(SRLG)
(SRLG), that are used during the Flexible Algorithm route
calculations in IS-IS and OSPF are advertised in those protocols
using the
Application Specific Application-Specific Link Attribute (ASLA) advertisements advertisements,
as described in [RFC8919], [RFC8920], and [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]. The BGP-LS
extensions for ASLA advertisements are specified in [RFC9294].

The Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) is considered as a prefix
attribute and advertised as specified in Section 4.

3. Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

This document defines a new optional BGP-LS Attribute TLV associated
with the Node NLRI called the Flexible "Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) TLV TLV"
("FAD TLV" for short), and its format is as follows:

Figure 1: Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

where:

*
Type: 1039

Length: The total length of the value field (including any sub-
TLVs) in octets. The length value MUST be 4 or larger.

Flexible Algorithm (Flex Algo): Single octet value carrying the
flexible algorithm
Flexible Algorithm number between 128 and 255 inclusive, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].

* [RFC9350].

Metric-Type: Single octet value carrying the metric type, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].

* [RFC9350].

Calc-Type: Single octet value carrying the calculation type, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].

* [RFC9350].

Priority: Single octet value carrying the priority of the FAD
advertisement, as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].

* [RFC9350].

sub-TLVs: zero Zero or more sub-TLVs may be included included, as described
further in this section.

The FAD TLV that is advertised in the BGP-LS Attribute along with the
Node NLRI of a node is derived from the following IGP protocol-
specific advertisements:

* In in the case of IS-IS, from the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition
sub-TLV in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]

* In in the case of OSPFv2/OSPFv3, from the OSPF Flexible Algorithm
Definition TLV in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]

The BGP-LS Attribute associated with a Node NLRI may include one or
more FAD TLVs corresponding to the FAD for each algorithm that the
particular node is advertising.

The following sub-sections subsections define sub-TLVs of the FAD TLV.

3.1. Flexible Algorithm Exclude Any Exclude-Any Affinity Sub-TLV

The Flexible Algorithm Exclude Any Exclude-Any Affinity sub-TLV is an optional
sub-TLV that is used to carry the affinity constraints associated
with the FAD and enable the exclusion of links carrying any of the
specified affinities from the computation of the specific algorithm algorithm,
as described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]. The affinity is expressed in terms of the
Extended Admin Group (EAG) (EAG), as defined in [RFC7308].

The sub-TLV has the following format:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Exclude-Any EAG (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: Flexible Algorithm Exclude Any Exclude-Any Affinity sub-TLV Sub-TLV

where:

*
Type: 1040

Length: The total length of the value field in octets dependent
on the size of the EAG. It MUST be a non-zero value and a
multiple of 4.

Exclude-Any EAG: the The EAG value value, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

The information in the Flexible Algorithm Exclude Any Exclude-Any Affinity sub-
TLV is derived from the IS-IS and OSPF protocol-specific Flexible
Algorithm Exclude Admin Group sub-TLV sub-TLV, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

3.2. Flexible Algorithm Include Any Include-Any Affinity Sub-TLV

The Flexible Algorithm Include Any Include-Any Affinity sub-TLV is an optional
sub-TLV that is used to carry the affinity constraints associated
with the FAD and enable the inclusion of links carrying any of the
specified affinities in the computation of the specific algorithm algorithm, as
described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]. The affinity is expressed in terms of Extended Admin Group (EAG) the
EAG, as defined in [RFC7308].

The sub-TLV has the following format:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Include-Any EAG (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 3: Flexible Algorithm Include Any Include-Any Affinity sub-TLV Sub-TLV

where:

*
Type: 1041

Length: The total length of the value field in octets dependent
on the size of the EAG. It MUST be a non-zero value and a
multiple of 4.

Include-Any EAG: the The EAG value value, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

The information in the Flexible Algorithm Include Any Include-Any Affinity sub-
TLV is derived from the IS-IS and OSPF protocol-specific Flexible
Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV sub-TLV, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

3.3. Flexible Algorithm Include All Include-All Affinity Sub-TLV

The Flexible Algorithm Include All Include-All Affinity sub-TLV is an optional
sub-TLV that is used to carry the affinity constraints associated
with the FAD and enable the inclusion of links carrying all of the
specified affinities in the computation of the specific algorithm algorithm, as
described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]. The affinity is expressed in terms of Extended Admin Group (EAG) the
EAG, as defined in [RFC7308].

The sub-TLV has the following format:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Include-All EAG (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 4: Flexible Algorithm Include All Include-All Affinity sub-TLV Sub-TLV

where:

*
Type: 1042

Length: The total length of the value field in octets dependent
on the size of the EAG. It MUST be a non-zero value and a
multiple of 4.

Include-All EAG: the The EAG value value, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

The information in the Flexible Algorithm Include All Include-All Affinity sub-
TLV is derived from the IS-IS and OSPF protocol-specific Flexible
Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV sub-TLV, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

3.4. Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV

The Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags sub-TLV is an optional sub-
TLV that is used to carry the flags associated with the FAD that are
used in the computation of the specific algorithm algorithm, as described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
[RFC9350].

The sub-TLV has the following format:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 5: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags sub-TLV Sub-TLV

where:

*
Type: 1043
*

Length: The total length of the value field in octets dependent
on the size of the Flags. flags. It MUST be a non-zero value and a
multiple of 4.

Flags: the The bitmask used to represent the flags for the FAD, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

The information in the Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags sub-TLV is
derived from the IS-IS and OSPF protocol-specific Flexible Algorithm
Definition Flags sub-TLV sub-TLV, as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

3.5. Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV

The Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV
that is used to carry the Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information
associated with the FAD and enable the exclusion of links that are
associated with any of the specified SRLG in the computation of the
specific algorithm algorithm, as described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]. The SRLGs associated
with a link are carried in the BGP-LS Shared Link Risk Link Group (TLV
1096) [RFC7752].

The sub-TLV has the following format:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Values (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 6: Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG sub-TLV Sub-TLV

where:

*
Type: 1045

Length: The total length of the value field in octets dependent
on the number of SRLG values carried. It MUST be a non-zero
value and a multiple of 4.

Shared Risk Link Group Values: One or more SRLG values, each with
a size of 4
octet size, octets, as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

The information in the Flexible Algorithm SRLG Exclude SRLG sub-TLV is
derived from the IS-IS and OSPF protocol-specific Flexible Algorithm
Exclude SRLG sub-TLV sub-TLV, as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350].

3.6. Flexible Algorithm Unsupported Sub-TLV

The OSPF and IS-IS signaling for FAD allows for extensions via new
sub-TLVs under the respective IGP's Flexible Algorithm Definition
TLV. As specified in section Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo], [RFC9350], it is important that
the entire FAD be understood by anyone using it for computation purpose.
purposes. Therefore, the FAD is different from most other protocol extensions
extensions, where the skipping or ignoring of unsupported sub-TLV
information does not affect the base behavior.

The Flexible Algorithm Unsupported sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV
that is used to indicate the presence of unsupported FAD sub-TLVs.
The need for this sub-TLV arises when the BGP-LS implementation on
the advertising node does not support one or more of the FAD sub-TLVs
present in the IGP advertisement.

The sub-TLV has the following format:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID | sub-TLV types (variable) ... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 7: Flexible Algorithm Unsupported sub-TLV Sub-TLV

where:

*
Type: TBD (Note to Editor: The code point allocation, once made by
IANA, needs to be updated here - refer to Section 5)

* 1046

Length: The total length of the value field in octets (including
any included sub-TLV types).

Protocol-ID: Indicates the BGP-LS Protocol-ID of the protocol
from which the FAD is being advertised via BGP-LS. The values
are from the IANA "BGP-LS Protocol-IDs" registry
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-
parameters.xhtml#protocol-ids> subregistry under the IANA BGP-LS Parameters
registry.

*
"Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters"
registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/>.

sub-TLV types: Zero or more sub-TLV types that are not supported
by the node originating the BGP-LS advertisement. The size of
each sub-TLV type depends on the protocol indicated by the
Protocol-ID field. For example, for IS-IS IS-IS, each sub-TLV type
would be of size 1 octet in size, while for OSPF OSPF, each sub-TLV type
would be of
size 2 octets. octets in size.

The node originating the advertisement MUST include the Flexible
Algorithm Unsupported sub-TLV when it comes across an unsupported
sub-TLV in the corresponding FAD in the IS-IS and OSPF advertisement.
When advertising the Flexible Algorithm Unsupported sub-TLV, the
protocol-specific sub-TLV types that are not supported SHOULD be
included. This information serves as a diagnostic aid.

The discussion on the use of the FAD information by the consumers of
the BGP-LS information is beyond the scope of this document.
However, it is RECOMMENDED that the choice of the node used for
originating the IGP topology information into BGP-LS be made such
that the advertising node supports all the FAD extensions in use in
its part of the network. This avoids the scenario where an
incomplete FAD gets advertised via BGP-LS.

4. Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV

This document defines a new optional BGP-LS Attribute TLV associated
with the Prefix NLRI called the Flexible "Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric
(FAPM) TLV
("FAPM TLV" for short), and its format is as follows:

Figure 8: Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV

where:

*
Type: 1044

Length: 8 octets.

* octets

Flexible Algorithm (Flex Algo): Single octet value carrying the
flexible algorithm
Flexible Algorithm number between 128 and 255 inclusive, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].

* [RFC9350].

Flags: single Single octet value and only applicable for OSPF OSPF, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]. The value MUST be set to 0 for IS-
IS.

* IS-IS.

Reserved: 2 octet 2-octet value that MUST be set to 0 by the originator
and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

Metric: 4 octets 4-octet field to carry the metric information.

The FAPM TLV that is advertised in the BGP-LS Attribute along with
the Prefix NLRI from a node is derived from the following IGP
protocol-specific advertisements:

* In in the case of IS-IS, from the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix
Metric sub-TLV in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]

* In in the case of OSPFv2/OSPFv3, from the OSPF Flexible Algorithm
Prefix Metric sub-TLV in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]

The BGP-LS Attribute associated with a Prefix NLRI may include one or
more FAPM TLVs corresponding to the Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric
for each algorithm associated with that particular prefix.

5. IANA Considerations

IANA has allocated code points from in the registry "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link
Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-
parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-
attribute-tlv> registry
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters> based on the
table below for the TLVs/sub-TLVs introduced by this document. This document requests IANA to allocate
the pending code point for the Flexible Algorithm Unsupported sub-TLV
as suggested below. The column "IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV" defined in the
registry does not require any value and should be left empty.

+------------+-----------------------------------------+

+================+=========================================+
| TLV Code Point | Description |
+------------+-----------------------------------------+
+================+=========================================+
| 1039 | Flexible Algorithm Definition |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1040 | Flexible Algorithm Exclude Any Exclude-Any Affinity |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1041 | Flexible Algorithm Include Any Include-Any Affinity |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1042 | Flexible Algorithm Include All Include-All Affinity |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1043 | Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1044 | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1045 | Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1046 (Sugg)| | Flexible Algorithm Unsupported |
+------------+-----------------------------------------+
+----------------+-----------------------------------------+

Table 1: Flexible Algorithm Code Points

6. Manageability Considerations

The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information that can be distributed via
[RFC7752]. Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this
document do not affect the BGP protocol operations and management
other than as what is discussed in the Manageability Considerations "Manageability Considerations"
section of [RFC7752]. Specifically, the malformed NLRIs attribute
tests in the Fault Management "Fault Management" section of [RFC7752] now encompass
the new TLVs for the BGP-LS NLRI in this document.

The extensions specified in this document do not specify any new
configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS. The
specification of BGP models is an ongoing work based on
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model].
[IDR-BGP-MODEL].

7. Security Considerations

Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
information are discussed in [RFC7752].

The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate the IGP
Flexible Algorithm extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [RFC9350]. It is assumed
that the IGP instances originating these TLVs will support all the
required security (as described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]) [RFC9350]) for Flexible Algorithm
deployment.

This document specifies extensions for the advertisement of node and
prefix related flexible algorithm
prefix-related Flexible Algorithm information. Tampering with this
flexible algorithm-related
Flexible-Algorithm-related information may affect applications using
it, including impacting route calculation and programming. As the
advertisements defined in this document are related to a specific
flexible algorithm
Flexible Algorithm topology, the impact of tampering is similarly
limited in scope.

8. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Amalesh Maity, Y F Siu,
Vijay Gurbani, and Donald Eastlake III for their reviews and
contributions to this work. The authors would like to thank Jie Dong
for his shepherd review. The authors would like to thank Alvaro
Retana for his detailed AD review and suggestions for improving this
document.

9. References

9.1.

8.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-20, 18 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-
20.txt>.

[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>.

[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.

[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

[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>.

9.2.

[RFC9350] Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K.,
and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]

[IDR-BGP-MODEL]
Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "BGP
YANG Model for Service Provider Networks", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-14, 3
July draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-15, 13
October 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
idr-bgp-model-14.txt>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-15>.

[IDR-BGPLS-SRV6-EXT]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Chen, M.,
Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions
for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09, 10 November 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
srv6-ext-09.txt>.
idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-13, 14 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
bgpls-srv6-ext-13>.

[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

[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>.

[RFC8919] Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and
J. Drake, "IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes",
RFC 8919, DOI 10.17487/RFC8919, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8919>.

[RFC8920] Psenak, P., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura,
J., and J. Drake, "OSPF Application-Specific Link
Attributes", RFC 8920, DOI 10.17487/RFC8920, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8920>.

[RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.

[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.

[RFC9294] Talaulikar, K., Ed., Psenak, P., and J. Tantsura,
"Application-Specific Link Attributes Advertisement Using
the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)",
RFC 9294, DOI 10.17487/RFC9294, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9294>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Amalesh Maity,
Y. F. Siu, Vijay Gurbani, and Donald Eastlake 3rd for their reviews
and contributions to this work. The authors would like to thank Jie
Dong for his shepherd review. The authors would like to thank Alvaro
Retana for his detailed AD review and suggestions for improving this
document.

Authors' Addresses

Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
Arrcus, Inc
Cisco Systems
India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com

Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com

Shawn Zandi
LinkedIn
United States of America
Email: szandi@linkedin.com

Gaurav Dawra
LinkedIn
United States of America
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com