draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-00.txt		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01.txt
	Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed.		Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed.
	Internet-Draft P. Psenak		Internet-Draft P. Psenak
	Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils		Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
	Expires: May 18, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: August 13, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	H. Gredler		H. Gredler
	RtBrick Inc.		RtBrick Inc.
	M. Chen		M. Chen
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Individual		Individual
	November 14, 2016		February 9, 2017
	BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing		BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-00		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end		Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
	paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of		paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
	topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are		topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are
	advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and		advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and
	OSPFv3).		OSPFv3).
	This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in		This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in
	skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 May 18, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 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
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://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
	skipping to change at page 3, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 5 ¶
	3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	3.1. Advertisement of a IS-IS Prefix SID TLV . . . . . . . . . 25		3.1. Advertisement of a IS-IS Prefix SID TLV . . . . . . . . . 25
	3.2. Advertisement of a OSPF/OSPFv3 Prefix-SID TLV . . . . . . 25		3.2. Advertisement of a OSPF/OSPFv3 Prefix-SID TLV . . . . . . 25
	3.3. Advertisement of a range of prefix-to-SID mappings in		3.3. Advertisement of a range of prefix-to-SID mappings in
	OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	3.4. Advertisement of a range of IS-IS SR bindings . . . . . . 26		3.4. Advertisement of a range of IS-IS SR bindings . . . . . . 26
	3.5. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from IS-IS		3.5. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from IS-IS
	protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	3.6. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from		3.6. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from
	OSPFv2/OSPFv3 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		OSPFv2/OSPFv3 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		5.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	5.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	5.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		6.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		10.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end		Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
	paths by combining sub-paths called "segments". A segment can		paths by combining sub-paths called "segments". A segment can
	represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment		represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment
	can have a local semantic to an SR node or global within a domain.		can have a local semantic to an SR node or global within a domain.
	Within IGP topologies an SR path is encoded as a sequence of		Within IGP topologies an SR path is encoded as a sequence of
	topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are		topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are
	advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and		advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and
	skipping to change at page 6, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 8 ¶
	These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Node Attribute associated with		These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Node Attribute associated with
	the Node NLRI that originates the corresponding SR TLV.		the Node NLRI that originates the corresponding SR TLV.
	2.1.1. SR-Capabilities TLV		2.1.1. SR-Capabilities TLV
	The SR Capabilities sub-TLV has following format:		The SR Capabilities sub-TLV has following format:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Flags | RESERVED |		| Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Range Size |		| Range Size |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	// SID/Label Sub-TLV (variable) //		// SID/Label Sub-TLV (variable) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 8, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 9 ¶
	2.1.4. SRMS Preference TLV		2.1.4. SRMS Preference TLV
	The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference sub-TLV is used		The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference sub-TLV is used
	in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a		in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a
	particular source.		particular source.
	The SRMS Preference sub-TLV has following format:		The SRMS Preference sub-TLV has following format:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Preference |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			| Preference |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Type: TBD, suggested value 1037.		Type: TBD, suggested value 1037.
	Length: 1.		Length: 1.
	Preference: 1 octet. Unsigned 8 bit SRMS preference.		Preference: 1 octet. Unsigned 8 bit SRMS preference.
	The use of the SRMS Preference TLV is defined in		The use of the SRMS Preference TLV is defined in
	[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].		[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
	skipping to change at page 27, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 27, line 29 ¶
	Advertisement of an SR path for range of prefixes: the OSPF/OSPFv3		Advertisement of an SR path for range of prefixes: the OSPF/OSPFv3
	Extended Prefix Range TLV is encoded in the BGP-LS Prefix		Extended Prefix Range TLV is encoded in the BGP-LS Prefix
	Attribute Range TLV as defined in Section 2.3.5. The original		Attribute Range TLV as defined in Section 2.3.5. The original
	OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding SID TLV is encoded into the BGP-LS Binding		OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding SID TLV is encoded into the BGP-LS Binding
	Sub-TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. The set of Sub-TLVs from the		Sub-TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. The set of Sub-TLVs from the
	original OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding TLV are encoded as Sub-TLVs of the		original OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding TLV are encoded as Sub-TLVs of the
	BGP-LS Binding TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. This includes the		BGP-LS Binding TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. This includes the
	SID/Label TLV defined in Section 2.3.		SID/Label TLV defined in Section 2.3.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. Implementation Status
			Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication,
			as well as the reference to RFC 7942.
			This section records the status of known implementations of the
			protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
			Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
			The description of implementations in this section is intended to
			assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
			RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
			here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
			has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
			supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
			be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
			features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
			exist.
			According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
			to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
			running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
			and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
			It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
			they see fit".
			Several early implementations exist and will be reported in detail in
			a forthcoming version of this document. For purposes of early
			interoperability testing, when no FCFS code point was available,
			implementations have made use of the values described in Table 8.
			It will ease implementation interoperability and deployment if the
			value could be preserved also due to the large amount of codepoints
			this draft requires. However, when IANA-assigned values are
			available, implementations will be updated to use them.
			5. IANA Considerations
	This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for		This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for
	BGP-LS attribute TLVs based on table Table 8.		BGP-LS attribute TLVs based on table Table 8.
	4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary		5.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary
	This section contains the global table of all TLVs/Sub-TLVs defined		This section contains the global table of all TLVs/Sub-TLVs defined
	in this document.		in this document.
	+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+		+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+
	| TLV Code | Description | Length | Section |		| TLV Code | Description | Length | Section |
	| Point | | | |		| Point | | | |
	+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+		+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+
	| 1034 | SR Capabilities | variable | Section 2.1.1 |		| 1034 | SR Capabilities | variable | Section 2.1.1 |
	| 1035 | SR Algorithm | variable | Section 2.1.2 |		| 1035 | SR Algorithm | variable | Section 2.1.2 |
	skipping to change at page 28, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 39 ¶
	| | | octets | |		| | | octets | |
	| 1168 | Unnumbered Interface ID | 12 | 1 [49] |		| 1168 | Unnumbered Interface ID | 12 | 1 [49] |
	| | Backup ERO TLV | octets | |		| | Backup ERO TLV | octets | |
	| 1169 | IPv6 Prefix SID | variable | Section 2.3.2 |		| 1169 | IPv6 Prefix SID | variable | Section 2.3.2 |
	| 1170 | IGP Prefix Attributes | variable | Section 2.3.3 |		| 1170 | IGP Prefix Attributes | variable | Section 2.3.3 |
	| 1171 | Source Router-ID | variable | Section 2.3.4 |		| 1171 | Source Router-ID | variable | Section 2.3.4 |
	+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+		+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+
	Table 8: Summary Table of TLV/Sub-TLV Codepoints		Table 8: Summary Table of TLV/Sub-TLV Codepoints
	5. Manageability Considerations		6. Manageability Considerations
	This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706].		This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706].
	5.1. Operational Considerations		6.1. Operational Considerations
	5.1.1. Operations		6.1.1. Operations
	Existing BGP and BGP-LS operational procedures apply. No additional		Existing BGP and BGP-LS operational procedures apply. No additional
	operation procedures are defined in this document.		operation procedures are defined in this document.
	6. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not		Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
	affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'		affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
	section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to		section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
	[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.		[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
	7. Contributors		8. Contributors
	The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of		The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of
	this document:		this document:
	Acee Lindem		Acee Lindem
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	Email: acee@cisco.com		Email: acee@cisco.com
	Saikat Ray		Saikat Ray
	Individual		Individual
	Email: raysaikat@gmail.com		Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
	8. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg and Ketan Jivan		The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg and Ketan Jivan
	Talaulikar for their review of this document.		Talaulikar for their review of this document.
	9. References		10. References
	9.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]		[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
	Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,		Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
	Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,		Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
	"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-		"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
	segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October		segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October
	2016.		2016.
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
	Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,		Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
	skipping to change at page 30, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 31, line 36 ¶
	S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and		S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
	Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,		Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
	[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.		March 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
	9.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
	and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-		and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
	spring-segment-routing-09 (work in progress), July 2016.		spring-segment-routing-10 (work in progress), November
			2016.
	[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",		[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
	RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,		RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
	[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and		[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
	Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",		Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
	RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,		RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
	[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of		[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
	BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying		BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
	and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design		and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
	Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,		Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
	9.3. URIs		[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
			Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
			RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
			10.3. URIs
	[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-		[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
	extensions-05#section-3.1		extensions-05#section-3.1
	[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-		[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
	extensions-05#section-3.2		extensions-05#section-3.2
	[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-		[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
	extensions-05#section-2.2.1		extensions-05#section-2.2.1
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	35 lines changed or deleted		79 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/