summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt592
1 files changed, 592 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..64db861
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,592 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Talaulikar, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 9356 P. Psenak
+Updates: 9085 Cisco Systems
+Category: Standards Track January 2023
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF
+
+Abstract
+
+ There are deployments where the Layer 3 (L3) interface on which OSPF
+ operates is a Layer 2 (L2) interface bundle. Existing OSPF
+ advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the L3
+ interface. If entities external to OSPF wish to control traffic
+ flows on the individual physical links that comprise the L2 interface
+ bundle, link attribute information for the bundle members is
+ required.
+
+ This document defines the protocol extensions for OSPF to advertise
+ the link attributes of L2 bundle members. The document also
+ specifies the advertisement of these OSPF extensions via the Border
+ Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) and thereby updates RFC 9085.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+ This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+ (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
+ received public review and has been approved for 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 this document, any errata,
+ and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+ https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9356.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+ (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
+ 1.1. Requirements Language
+ 2. L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+ 3. BGP-LS Advertisement
+ 4. IANA Considerations
+ 5. Operational Considerations
+ 6. Security Considerations
+ 7. References
+ 7.1. Normative References
+ 7.2. Informative References
+ Acknowledgements
+ Authors' Addresses
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ There are deployments where the L3 interface on which an OSPF
+ adjacency is established is a L2 interface bundle, for instance, a
+ Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX]. This reduces the number
+ of adjacencies that need to be maintained by the OSPF protocol in
+ cases where there are parallel links between the neighbors. Entities
+ external to OSPF such as Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655]
+ may wish to control traffic flows on individual L2 member links of
+ the underlying bundle interface (e.g., LAG). To do so, link
+ attribute information for individual bundle members is required. The
+ protocol extensions defined in this document provide the means to
+ advertise this information.
+
+ This document defines sub-TLVs to advertise link attribute
+ information for each of the L2 bundle members that comprise the L3
+ interface on which OSPF operates. Similar capabilities were
+ introduced for IS-IS in [RFC8668].
+
+ [RFC8665] and [RFC8666] introduced the Adjacency Segment Identifier
+ (Adj-SID) link attribute for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, respectively, which
+ can be used as an instruction to forward traffic over a specific link
+ [RFC8402]. This document enables the advertisement of the Adj-SIDs
+ using the same Adj-SID sub-TLV at the granularity level of each L2
+ bundle member link so that traffic may be steered over that specific
+ member link.
+
+ Note that the advertisements at the L2 bundle member link level
+ defined in this document are intended to be provided to entities
+ external to OSPF and do not alter or change the OSPF route
+ computation. The following items are intentionally not defined in
+ and are outside the scope of this document:
+
+ * What link attributes will be advertised. This is determined by
+ the needs of the external entities.
+
+ * A minimum or default set of link attributes.
+
+ * How these attributes are configured.
+
+ * How the advertisements are used.
+
+ * What impact the use of these advertisements may have on traffic
+ flow in the network.
+
+ * How the advertisements are passed to external entities.
+
+ BGP Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] was extended for the advertisement
+ of L2 bundle members and their attributes in [RFC9085], which covered
+ only IS-IS. This document updates [RFC9085] by specifying the
+ advertisement from OSPF (refer to Section 3).
+
+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. L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+
+ A new L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV is introduced to advertise
+ L2 bundle member attributes in both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. In the case
+ of OSPFv2, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended
+ Link TLV that is used to describe link attributes via the OSPFv2
+ Extended Link Opaque LSA (Link State Advertisement) [RFC7684]. In
+ the case of OSPFv3, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the
+ Router-Link TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362].
+
+ When the OSPF adjacency is associated with an L2 bundle interface,
+ this sub-TLV is used to advertise the underlying L2 bundle member
+ links along with their respective link attributes. The inclusion of
+ this information implies that the identified link is a member of the
+ L2 bundle associated with an OSPF L3 link and that the member link is
+ operationally up. Therefore, advertisements of member links MUST NOT
+ be done when the member link becomes operationally down or is no
+ longer a member of the identified L2 bundle.
+
+ The advertisement of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV may be
+ asymmetric for an OSPF link, depending on the underlying L2
+ connectivity, i.e., advertised by the router on only one end.
+
+ The L2 Bundle Member Attributes 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 |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | L2 Bundle Member Descriptor |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Member Link Attribute sub-TLVs (variable) //
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Figure 1: L2 Bundle Member Attributes Sub-TLV Format
+
+ Where:
+
+ Type: 24 for OSPFv2 and 29 for OSPFv3
+
+ Length: The total length (in octets) of the value portion of the TLV
+ including nested sub-TLVs.
+
+ L2 Bundle Member Descriptor: A 4-octet link-local identifier for the
+ member link. This identifier is described as "link local
+ identifier" in [RFC4202] and used as "Local Interface ID" in
+ [RFC8510].
+
+ Link attributes for L2 bundle member links are advertised as sub-TLVs
+ of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+ In the case of OSPFv2, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares
+ the sub-TLV space of the Extended Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the
+ Extended Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the
+ member link. Table 1 lists sub-TLVs and their applicability for L2
+ bundle member links. The sub-TLVs that are not applicable MUST NOT
+ be used as sub-TLVs for the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+ Specifications that introduce new sub-TLVs of the Extended Link TLV
+ MUST indicate their applicability to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+ sub-TLV. Typically, attributes that have L3 semantics would not be
+ applicable, but L2 attributes would apply. An implementation MUST
+ ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context
+ of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+ +=======+======================================+===============+
+ | Value | Description | Applicability |
+ +=======+======================================+===============+
+ | 1 | SID/Label | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 2 | Adj-SID | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 3 | LAN Adj-SID/Label | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 4 | Network-to-Router Metric | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 5 | RTM Capability | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 6 | OSPFv2 Link MSD | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 7 | Graceful-Link-Shutdown | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 8 | Remote IPv4 Address | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 9 | Local/Remote Interface ID | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 10 | Application-Specific Link Attributes | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 11 | Shared Risk Link Group | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 12 | Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 13 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 14 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 15 | Unidirectional Link Loss | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 16 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 17 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 18 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 19 | Administrative Group | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 20 | Extended Administrative Group | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 22 | TE Metric | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 23 | Maximum Link Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 24 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | N |
+ +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+
+ Table 1: Applicability of OSPFv2 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for
+ L2 Bundle Members
+
+ Applicability:
+
+ Y: This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-
+ TLV.
+
+ N: This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+ sub-TLV.
+
+ In the case of OSPFv3, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares
+ the sub-TLV space of the Router-Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the
+ Router-Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the member
+ link. Table 2 lists sub-TLVs that are applicable to the Router-Link
+ TLV and their applicability for L2 bundle member links. The sub-TLVs
+ that are not applicable MUST NOT be used as sub-TLVs for the L2
+ Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. Specifications that introduce new
+ sub-TLVs of the Router-Link TLV MUST indicate their applicability to
+ the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. An implementation MUST
+ ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context
+ of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+ +=======+=========================================+===============+
+ | Value | Description | Applicability |
+ +=======+=========================================+===============+
+ | 1 | IPv6-Forwarding-Address | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 2 | IPv4-Forwarding-Address | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 3 | Route-Tag | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 4 | Prefix SID | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 5 | Adj-SID | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 6 | LAN Adj-SID | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 7 | SID/Label | N |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 8 | Graceful-Link-Shutdown | N |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 9 | OSPFv3 Link MSD | N |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 11 | Application-Specific Link Attributes | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 12 | Shared Risk Link Group | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 13 | Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 14 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 15 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 16 | Unidirectional Link Loss | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 17 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 18 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 19 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 20 | Administrative Group | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 21 | Extended Administrative Group | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 22 | TE Metric | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 23 | Maximum Link Bandwidth | Y |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 24 | Local Interface IPv6 Address | N |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 25 | Remote Interface IPv6 Address | N |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 26 | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 27 | Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 28 | Prefix Source Router Address | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 29 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | N |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+ | 33 | OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric | X |
+ +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+
+ Table 2: Applicability of OSPFv3 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for L2
+ Bundle Members
+
+ Applicability:
+
+ Y: This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-
+ TLV.
+
+ N: This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+ sub-TLV.
+
+ X: This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT appear
+ in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+3. BGP-LS Advertisement
+
+ The BGP-LS extensions for the advertisement of L2 bundle members and
+ their attributes were specified in [RFC9085]. Using the OSPF L2
+ Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV defined in this document, the L2
+ bundle member information can now be advertised from OSPF into BGP-LS
+ on the same lines as discussed for IS-IS in Section 2.2.3 of
+ [RFC9085].
+
+4. IANA Considerations
+
+ IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv2 Extended
+ Link TLV Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2
+ (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry:
+
+ Value: 24
+
+ Designation: L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+
+ IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv3 Extended-
+ LSA Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v3
+ (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry:
+
+ Value: 29
+
+ Description: L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+
+ IANA has also introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv2
+ Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry. The "L2BM" column indicates
+ applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV. The
+ initial allocations (Y/N) for this column are indicated in Table 1.
+ The following explanatory note has been added to the registry:
+
+ | The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
+ | Attributes Member sub-TLV. The options for the "L2BM" column are:
+ |
+ | Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+ | sub-TLV.
+ |
+ | N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
+ | Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+ Similarly, IANA has introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv3
+ Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry. The "L2BM" column indicates
+ applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV. The
+ initial allocations (Y/N/X) for this column are indicated in Table 2.
+ The following explanatory note has been added to the registry:
+
+ | The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
+ | Attributes Member sub-TLV. The options for the "L2BM" column are:
+ |
+ | Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+ | sub-TLV.
+ |
+ | N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
+ | Attributes sub-TLV.
+ |
+ | X - This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT
+ | appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+ Future allocations in these two registries are required to indicate
+ the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member
+ Attributes sub-TLV. IANA has added this document as a reference for
+ both registries.
+
+5. Operational Considerations
+
+ Implementations MUST NOT enable the advertisement of L2 bundle member
+ links and their attributes in OSPF LSAs by default and MUST provide a
+ configuration option to enable their advertisement on specific links.
+
+ [RFC9129] specifies the base YANG data model for OSPF. The required
+ configuration and operational elements for this feature are expected
+ to be introduced as augmentation to this base YANG data model for
+ OSPF.
+
+6. Security Considerations
+
+ The OSPF protocol has supported the advertisement of link attribute
+ information, including link identifiers, for many years. The
+ advertisements defined in this document are identical to the existing
+ advertisements defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203], [RFC5329], [RFC7471],
+ [RFC8665], and [RFC8666], but they are associated with L2 links that
+ are part of a bundle interface on which the OSPF protocol operates.
+ Therefore, the security considerations of these documents are
+ applicable, and there are no new security issues introduced by the
+ extensions in this document.
+
+ As always, if the protocol is used in an environment where
+ unauthorized access to the physical links on which OSPF packets are
+ sent occurs, then attacks are possible. The use of authentication as
+ defined in [RFC5709], [RFC7474], [RFC4552], and [RFC7166] is
+ recommended for preventing such attacks.
+
+7. References
+
+7.1. Normative References
+
+ [IEEE802.1AX]
+ IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
+ Networks--Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX,
+ DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020,
+ <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034>.
+
+ [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>.
+
+ [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
+ in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
+ (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
+
+ [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
+ Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
+ Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
+ 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
+
+ [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>.
+
+ [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
+ F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
+ Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
+ 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
+
+ [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
+ H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
+ Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
+
+ [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
+ for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
+ December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
+
+ [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>.
+
+7.2. Informative References
+
+ [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
+ (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
+
+ [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
+ Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
+ (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
+
+ [RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
+ for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
+
+ [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
+ Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
+
+ [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
+ "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
+ RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
+
+ [RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
+ Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
+ Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
+ 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
+
+ [RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
+ Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
+
+ [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
+ Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
+ Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
+
+ [RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
+ "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
+ Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
+
+ [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>.
+
+ [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>.
+
+ [RFC8510] Psenak, P., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Henderickx, W., and P.
+ Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling (LLS)
+ Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement",
+ RFC 8510, DOI 10.17487/RFC8510, January 2019,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8510>.
+
+ [RFC8668] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
+ M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
+ Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
+ December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.
+
+ [RFC9129] Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,
+ "YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol", RFC 9129,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC9129, October 2022,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9129>.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+ This document leverages similar work done for IS-IS, and the authors
+ of this document would like to acknowledge the contributions of the
+ authors of [RFC8668].
+
+ The authors would like to thank Anoop Ghanwani, Paul Kyzivat, Dan
+ Romascanu, and Russ Mundy for their review and feedback on this
+ document. The authors would also like to thank Acee Lindem for his
+ detailed shepherd review of this document. The authors would also
+ like to thank John Scudder for his AD review and the discussion
+ related to the applicability of TLVs/sub-TLVs to the L2 Bundle Member
+ Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
+ Cisco Systems
+ India
+ Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
+
+
+ Peter Psenak
+ Cisco Systems
+ Apollo Business Center
+ Mlynske nivy 43
+ 821 09 Bratislava
+ Slovakia
+ Email: ppsenak@cisco.com