draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-06.txt   draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force L. Ginsberg, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track A. Przygienda Intended status: Standards Track A. Przygienda
Expires: April 25, 2018 Juniper Networks Expires: August 13, 2018 Juniper Networks
S. Aldrin S. Aldrin
Google Google
J. Zhang J. Zhang
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
October 22, 2017 February 9, 2018
BIER support via ISIS BIER support via ISIS
draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-06 draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07
Abstract Abstract
Specification of an ISIS extension to support BIER domains and sub- Specification of an ISIS extension to support BIER domains and sub-
domains. domains.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 April 25, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. BIER Domains and Sub-Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. BIER Domains and Sub-Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Advertising BIER Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Advertising BIER Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Multi Topology and Sub-Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Multi Topology and Sub-Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3. BIER Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.3. BIER Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.4. Label advertisements for MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . 6 5.4. Label advertisements for MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . 6
5.5. BFR-id Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.5. BFR-id Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.6. Reporting Misconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.6. Reporting Misconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.7. Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.7. Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. BIER Info sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. BIER Info sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Optional BIER sub-domain BSL conversion sub-sub-TLV . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] defines an
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08] defines an architecture where architecture where all intended multicast receivers are encoded as
all intended multicast receivers are encoded as bitmask in the bitmask in the Multicast packet header within different
Multicast packet header within different encapsulations such as encapsulations such as [RFC8296]. A router that receives such a
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10]. A router that receives packet will forward the packet based on the Bit Position in the
such a packet will forward the packet based on the Bit Position in packet header towards the receiver(s), following a precomputed tree
the packet header towards the receiver(s), following a precomputed for each of the bits in the packet. Each receiver is represented by
tree for each of the bits in the packet. Each receiver is a unique bit in the bitmask.
represented by a unique bit in the bitmask.
This document presents necessary extensions to the currently deployed This document presents necessary extensions to the currently deployed
ISIS for IP [RFC1195] protocol to support distribution of information ISIS for IP [RFC1195] protocol to support distribution of information
necessary for operation of BIER domains and sub-domains. This necessary for operation of BIER domains and sub-domains. This
document defines a new TLV to be advertised by every router document defines a new TLV to be advertised by every router
participating in BIER signaling. participating in BIER signaling.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
Some of the terminology specified in Some of the terminology specified in [RFC8279] is replicated here and
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08] is replicated here and extended extended by necessary definitions:
by necessary definitions:
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication (The overall architecture of BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication (The overall architecture of
forwarding multicast using a Bit Position). forwarding multicast using a Bit Position).
BIER-OL: BIER Overlay Signaling. (The method for the BFIR to learn BIER-OL: BIER Overlay Signaling. (The method for the BFIR to learn
about BFER's). about BFER's).
BFR: Bit Forwarding Router (A router that participates in Bit Index BFR: Bit Forwarding Router (A router that participates in Bit Index
Multipoint Forwarding). A BFR is identified by a unique BFR- Multipoint Forwarding). A BFR is identified by a unique BFR-
prefix in a BIER domain. prefix in a BIER domain.
skipping to change at page 3, line 47 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
BIER sub-domain: A further distinction within a BIER domain BIER sub-domain: A further distinction within a BIER domain
identified by its unique sub-domain identifier. A BIER sub-domain identified by its unique sub-domain identifier. A BIER sub-domain
can support multiple BitString Lengths. can support multiple BitString Lengths.
BFR-id: An optional, unique identifier for a BFR within a BIER sub- BFR-id: An optional, unique identifier for a BFR within a BIER sub-
domain. domain.
Invalid BFR-id: Unassigned BFR-id. The special value 0 is reserved Invalid BFR-id: Unassigned BFR-id. The special value 0 is reserved
for this purpose. for this purpose.
BAR BIER Algorithm. Algorithm used to calculate unicast nexthops BAR BIER Algorithm. Algorithm used to calculate nexthops.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document adds the following new sub-TLV to the registry of sub- This document adds the following new sub-TLV to the registry of sub-
TLVs for TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] and TLVs 135,236 TLVs for TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] and TLVs 135,236
[RFC5305],[RFC5308]. [RFC5305],[RFC5308].
Value: 32 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA) Value: 32 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA)
Name: BIER Info Name: BIER Info
This document also introduces a new registry for sub-sub-TLVs for the This document also introduces a new registry for sub-sub-TLVs for the
BIER Info sub-TLV added above. The registration policy is Expert BIER Info sub-TLV added above. The registration policy is Expert
Review as defined in [RFC8126]. This registry is part of the "IS-IS Review as defined in [RFC8126]. This registry is part of the "IS-IS
TLV Codepoints" registry. The name of the registry is "sub-sub-TLVs TLV Codepoints" registry. The name of the registry is "sub-sub-TLVs
for BIER Info sub-TLV". The defined values are: for BIER Info sub-TLV". The defined values are:
Type Name Type Name
---- ---- ---- ----
1 BIER MPLS Encapsulation 1 BIER MPLS Encapsulation
3 BIER sub-domain BSL conversion
4. Concepts 4. Concepts
4.1. BIER Domains and Sub-Domains 4.1. BIER Domains and Sub-Domains
An ISIS signalled BIER domain is aligned with the scope of An ISIS signalled BIER domain is aligned with the scope of
distribution of BFR-prefixes that identify the BFRs within ISIS. distribution of BFR-prefixes that identify the BFRs within ISIS.
ISIS acts in such a case as the supporting BIER underlay. ISIS acts in such a case as the supporting BIER underlay.
Within such a domain, the extensions defined in this document Within such a domain, the extensions defined in this document
advertise BIER information for one or more BIER sub-domains. Each advertise BIER information for one or more BIER sub-domains. Each
sub-domain is uniquely identified by a subdomain-id. Each subdomain sub-domain is uniquely identified by a subdomain-id. Each subdomain
is associated with a single ISIS topology [RFC5120], which may be any is associated with a single ISIS topology [RFC5120], which may be any
of the topologies supported by ISIS. Local configuration controls of the topologies supported by ISIS. Local configuration controls
which <MT,SD> pairs are supported by a router. The mapping of sub- which <MT,SD> pairs are supported by a router. The mapping of sub-
domains to topologies MUST be consistent within a BIER flooding domains to topologies MUST be consistent within the IS-IS flooding
domain. domain used to advertise BIER information.
Each BIER sub-domain has as its unique attributes the encapsulation Each BIER sub-domain has as its unique attributes the encapsulation
used and the type of tree it is using to forward BIER frames used and the type of tree it is using to forward BIER frames
(currently always SPF). Additionally, per supported bitstring length (currently always SPF). Additionally, per supported bitstring length
in the sub-domain, each router will advertise the necessary label in the sub-domain, each router will advertise the necessary label
ranges to support it. ranges to support it.
4.2. Advertising BIER Information 4.2. Advertising BIER Information
BIER information advertisements are associated with a new sub-TLV in BIER information advertisements are associated with a new sub-TLV in
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
advertisement is leaked between levels. advertisement is leaked between levels.
5. Procedures 5. Procedures
5.1. Multi Topology and Sub-Domain 5.1. Multi Topology and Sub-Domain
A given sub-domain is supported within one and only one topology. A given sub-domain is supported within one and only one topology.
All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER sub-TLVs MUST advertise All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER sub-TLVs MUST advertise
the same sub-domain within the same multi-topology. A router the same sub-domain within the same multi-topology. A router
receiving an <MT,SD> advertisement which does not match the locally receiving an <MT,SD> advertisement which does not match the locally
configured pair MUST report a misconfiguration of the received <MT, configured pair MUST report a misconfiguration of the received
SD> pair. All received BIER advertisements associated with the <MT,SD> pair. All received BIER advertisements associated with the
conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be ignored. conflicting <MT,SD> pair MUST be ignored.
5.2. Encapsulation Example:
All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise the The following combination of advertisements are valid: <0,0> <0,1>
same encapsulation for a given <MT,SD>. A router discovering <2,2>.
encapsulation advertised that is different from its own MUST report a
misconfiguration of a specific <MT,SD>. All received BIER The following combination of advertisements are invalid: <0,0> <0,1>
advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be <2,0>. Advertisements associated with <0,0> and <2,0> MUST be
ignored. ignored.
5.2. Encapsulation
Multiple encapsulations MAY be advertised/supported for a given
<MT,SD>. Clearly, however, there MUST be at least one encapsulation
type in common in order for a BIER encapsulated packet to be
successfully forwarded between two BFRs.
5.3. BIER Algorithm 5.3. BIER Algorithm
All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise a All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise a
supported algorithm for a given <MT,SD>. The specified algorithm is supported algorithm for a given <MT,SD>. The specified algorithm is
used when calculating the optimal path. Currently only the default used when calculating the optimal path. The supported algorithm MUST
algorithm "SPF" is defined - which has a reserved value of 0. The be consistent for all routers supporting a given <MT,SD>. A router
supported algorithm MUST be consistent for all routers supporting a receiving an <MT,SD> advertisement with a BAR which does not match
given <MT,SD>. A router receiving an <MT,SD> advertisement with a the locally configured value MUST report a misconfiguration of the
BAR which does not match the locally configured value MUST report a received <MT, SD> pair. All received BIER advertisements associated
misconfiguration of the received <MT, SD> pair. All received BIER with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be ignored.
advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be
ignored. Currently only the default algorithm "SPF" is defined - which has a
reserved value of 0 and represents Shortest Path First (SPF) based on
IGP link metric. This is the standard shortest path algorithm as
computed by the IS-IS protocol.
5.4. Label advertisements for MPLS Encapsulation 5.4. Label advertisements for MPLS Encapsulation
A router that desires to participate in <MT,SD> MUST advertise for A router that desires to participate in <MT,SD> MUST advertise for
each bitstring length it supports in <MT,SD> a label range size that each bitstring length it supports in <MT,SD> a Maximum Set ID that
guarantees to cover the maximum BFR-id injected into <MT,SD> (which guarantees to cover the maximum BFR-id injected into <MT,SD> (which
implies a certain maximum set id per bitstring length as described in implies a certain maximum set id per bitstring length as described in
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08]). Any router that violates [RFC8279]). Any router that violates this condition MUST be excluded
this condition MUST be excluded from BIER BFTs for <MT,SD>. from BIER BFTs for <MT,SD>.
5.5. BFR-id Advertisements 5.5. BFR-id Advertisements
Each BFER/BFIR MAY advertise with its TLV<MT,SD> the BFR-id that it Each BFER/BFIR MAY advertise with its TLV<MT,SD> the BFR-id that it
has administratively chosen. A valid BFR-id MUST be unique within has administratively chosen. A valid BFR-id MUST be unique within
the flooding scope of the BIER advertisments. All BFERs/BFIRs MUST the flooding scope of the BIER advertisements. All BFERs/BFIRs MUST
detect advertisement of duplicate valid BFR-IDs for a given <MT, SD>. detect advertisement of duplicate valid BFR-IDs for a given <MT, SD>.
When such duplication is detected all of the routers advertising When such duplication is detected all of the routers advertising
duplicates MUST be treated as if they did not advertise a valid BFR- duplicates MUST be treated as if they did not advertise a valid BFR-
id. This implies they cannot act as BFER or BFIR in that <MT,SD>. id. This implies they cannot act as BFER or BFIR in that <MT,SD>.
5.6. Reporting Misconfiguration 5.6. Reporting Misconfiguration
Whenever an advertisement is received which violates any of the Whenever an advertisement is received which violates any of the
constraints defined in this document the receiving router MUST report constraints defined in this document the receiving router MUST report
the misconfiguration. Such reports SHOULD be dampened to avoid the misconfiguration. Such reports SHOULD be dampened to avoid
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 7, line 28
Type: as indicated in IANA section. Type: as indicated in IANA section.
Length: variable Length: variable
BAR BIER Algorithm. 0 is the only supported value defined in this BAR BIER Algorithm. 0 is the only supported value defined in this
document. Other values may be defined in the future. 8 bits document. Other values may be defined in the future. 8 bits
subdomain-id: Unique value identifying the BIER sub-domain. 1 octet subdomain-id: Unique value identifying the BIER sub-domain. 1 octet
BFR-id: A 2 octet field encoding the BFR-id, as documented in BFR-id: A 2 octet field encoding the BFR-id, as documented in
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08]. If no BFR-id has been [RFC8279]. If no BFR-id has been assigned this field is set to
assigned this field is set to the invalid BFR-id. the invalid BFR-id.
6.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV 6.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV
This sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER MPLS This sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER MPLS
encapsulation including the label range for a specific bitstring encapsulation including the label range for a specific bitstring
length for a certain <MT,SD>. It is advertised within the BIER Info length for a certain <MT,SD>. It is advertised within the BIER Info
sub-TLV (Section 6.1) . This sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times sub-TLV (Section 6.1) . This sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times
within a single BIER info sub-TLV. within a single BIER info sub-TLV.
On violation of any of the following conditions, the receiving router On violation of any of the following conditions, the receiving router
MUST ignore the encapsulating BIER Info sub-TLV. MUST ignore the encapsulating BIER Info sub-TLV.
o Label ranges in multiple sub-sub-TLV MUST NOT overlap. o Label ranges in multiple sub-sub-TLV MUST NOT overlap.
o Bitstring lengths in multiple sub-sub-TLVs MUST NOT be identical. o Bitstring lengths in multiple sub-sub-TLVs MUST NOT be identical.
o The sub-sub-TLV MUST include the required bitstring lengths o The sub-sub-TLV MUST include the required bitstring lengths
encoded in precisely the same way as in encoded in precisely the same way as in [RFC8296].
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10].
o The label range size MUST be greater than 0.
o All labels in the range MUST represent valid label values o All labels in the range MUST represent valid label values
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lbl Range Size|BS Len | Label | | Max SI |BS Len | Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: value of 1 indicating MPLS encapsulation. Type: value of 1 indicating MPLS encapsulation.
Length: 4 Length: 4
Local BitString Length (BS Len): Encoded bitstring length as per [I- Local BitString Length (BS Len): Encoded bitstring length as per
D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10]. 4 bits. [RFC8296]. 4 bits.
Label Range Size: Number of labels in the range used on Max SI Maximum Set Identifier (section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the
encapsulation for this BIER sub-domain for this bitstring length, encapsulation for this BIER sub-domain for this bitstring length,
1 octet. The size of the label range is determined by the number 1 octet. Each SI maps to a single label in the label range. The
of Set Identifiers (SI) (section 1 of [I-D.ietf-bier- first label is for SI=0, the second label is for SI=1, etc.
architecture]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps to a
single label in the label range. The first label is for SI=0, the
second label is for SI=1, etc.
Label: First label of the range, 20 bits. The labels are as defined Label: First label of the range, 20 bits. The labels are as defined
in [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10]. in [RFC8296].
6.3. Optional BIER sub-domain BSL conversion sub-sub-TLV
This sub-sub-TLV indicates whether the BFR is capable of imposing a
different Bit String Length (BSL) than the one it received in a BIER
encapsulated packet. Such a capability may allow future, advanced
tree types which ensure simple migration procedures from one BSL to
another in a given <MT,SD> or prevent stable blackholes in scenarios
where not all routers support the same set of BSLs in a given
<MT,SD>. Conversions are supported only between the set of BSLs
advertised as supported by the router. It is carried within the BIER
Info sub-TLV (Section 6.1). This sub-sub-TLV is optional and its
absence indicates that the router is NOT capable of imposing
different BSLs but will always forward the packet with the BSL
unchanged. This sub-sub-TLV MAY occur at most once in a given BIER
info sub-TLV. If multiple occurences of this sub-sub-TLV are
received in a given BIER info sub-TLV the encapsulating sub-TLV MUST
be ignored.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: value of 3 indicating BIER sub-domain BSL Conversion
Length: 0
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV
permutations do not result in errors which cause hard protocol permutations do not result in errors which cause hard protocol
failures. failures.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The RFC is aligned with the The RFC is aligned with the
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-08] draft as far as the [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10] draft as far as the
protocol mechanisms overlap. protocol mechanisms overlap.
Many thanks for comments from (in no particular order) Hannes Many thanks for comments from (in no particular order) Hannes
Gredler, Ijsbrand Wijnands, Peter Psenak and Chris Bowers. Gredler, Ijsbrand Wijnands, Peter Psenak and Chris Bowers.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
skipping to change at page 10, line 14 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, [RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
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>.
9.2. Informative References [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08] [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Wijnands et al., IJ., "Stateless Multicast using Bit Index Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
Explicit Replication Architecture", internet-draft draft- for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt, Sep 2017. MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10] 9.2. Informative References
Wijnands et al., IJ., "Bit Index Explicit Replication
using MPLS encapsulation", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-
mpls-encapsulation-10.txt, Sep 2017.
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-08] [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10]
Psenak et al., P., "OSPF Extension for Bit Index Explicit Psenak et al., P., "OSPF Extension for Bit Index Explicit
Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier- Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-
extensions-08.txt, Oct 2017. extensions-09.txt, Dec 2017.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg (editor) Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
107 lines changed or deleted 80 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/