path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9350.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                    P. Psenak, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9350                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                       S. Hegde
ISSN: 2070-1721                                   Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                           K. Talaulikar
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                                A. Gulko
                                                            Edward Jones
                                                           February 2023


                         IGP Flexible Algorithm

Abstract

   IGP protocols historically compute the best paths over the network
   based on the IGP metric assigned to the links.  Many network
   deployments use RSVP-TE or Segment Routing - Traffic Engineering (SR-
   TE) to steer traffic over a path that is computed using different
   metrics or constraints than the shortest IGP path.  This document
   specifies a solution that allows IGPs themselves to compute
   constraint-based paths over the network.  This document also
   specifies a way of using Segment Routing (SR) Prefix-SIDs and SRv6
   locators to steer packets along the constraint-based paths.

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/rfc9350.

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
   2.  Requirements Language
   3.  Terminology
   4.  Flexible Algorithm
   5.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement
     5.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV
     5.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV
     5.3.  Common Handling of the Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV
   6.  Sub-TLVs of IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV
     6.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV
     6.2.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV
     6.3.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV
     6.4.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV
     6.5.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV
   7.  Sub-TLVs of the OSPF FAD TLV
     7.1.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV
     7.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV
     7.3.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV
     7.4.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV
     7.5.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV
   8.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV
   9.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV
   10. OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Reachability Advertisement
     10.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR LSA
       10.1.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLV
     10.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV
   11. Advertisement of Node Participation in a Flex-Algorithm
     11.1.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment Routing
     11.2.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Other Data Planes
   12. Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm
   13. Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths
     13.1.  Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations
   14. Flex-Algorithm and Forwarding Plane
     14.1.  Segment Routing MPLS Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm
     14.2.  SRv6 Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm
     14.3.  Other Data Planes' Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm
   15. Operational Considerations
     15.1.  Inter-area Considerations
     15.2.  Usage of the SRLG Exclude Rule with Flex-Algorithm
     15.3.  Max-Metric Consideration
     15.4.  Flexible Algorithm Definition and Changes
     15.5.  Number of Flex-Algorithms
   16. Backward Compatibility
   17. Security Considerations
   18. IANA Considerations
     18.1.  IGP IANA Considerations
       18.1.1.  IGP Algorithm Types Registry
       18.1.2.  IGP Metric-Type Registry
     18.2.  IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Registry
     18.3.  IS-IS IANA Considerations
       18.3.1.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV
               Registry
       18.3.2.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix
               Reachability Registry
       18.3.3.  IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition
               Sub-TLV Registry
     18.4.  OSPF IANA Considerations
       18.4.1.  OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry
       18.4.2.  OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry
       18.4.3.  OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs Registry
       18.4.4.  OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Bits Registry
       18.4.5.  Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types
               Registry
       18.4.6.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLVs Registry
       18.4.7.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR Sub-TLVs Registry
       18.4.8.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLVs
               Registry
       18.4.9.  Link Attribute Application Identifiers Registry
   19. References
     19.1.  Normative References
     19.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   An IGP-computed path based on the shortest IGP metric is often
   replaced by a traffic-engineered path due to requirements that are
   not reflected by the IGP metric.  Some networks engineer the IGP
   metric assignments in a way that the IGP metric reflects the link
   bandwidth or delay.  If, for example, the IGP metric reflects the
   bandwidth on the link and user traffic is delay sensitive, the best
   IGP path may not reflect the best path from such a user's
   perspective.

   To overcome this limitation, various sorts of Traffic Engineering
   have been deployed, including RSVP-TE and SR-TE, in which case the TE
   component is responsible for computing paths based on additional
   metrics and/or constraints.  Such paths need to be installed in the
   forwarding tables in addition to, or as a replacement for, the
   original paths computed by IGPs.  Tunnels are often used to represent
   the engineered paths and mechanisms, like the one described in
   [RFC3906], and are used to replace the original IGP paths with such
   tunnel paths.

   This document specifies a set of extensions to IS-IS, OSPFv2, and
   OSPFv3 that enable a router to advertise TLVs that (a) identify a
   calculation-type, (b) specify a metric-type, and (c) describe a set
   of constraints on the topology that are to be used to compute the
   best paths along the constrained topology.  A given combination of
   calculation-type, metric-type, and constraints is known as a
   "Flexible Algorithm Definition".  A router that sends such a set of
   TLVs also assigns a Flex-Algorithm value to the specified combination
   of calculation-type, metric-type, and constraints.

   This document also specifies a way for a router to use IGPs to
   associate one or more Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane (SR-
   MPLS) Prefix-SIDs [RFC8660] or Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
   locators [RFC8986] with a particular Flex-Algorithm.  Each such
   Prefix-SID or SRv6 locator then represents a path that is computed
   according to the identified Flex-Algorithm.  In SRv6, it is the
   locator, not the Segment Identifier (SID), that holds the binding to
   the algorithm.

2.  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.

3.  Terminology

   This section defines terms that are often used in this document.

   Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD):  the set consisting of (a) a
      calculation-type, (b) a metric-type, and (c) a set of constraints.

   Flex-Algorithm:  a numeric identifier in the range 128-255 that is
      associated via configuration with the Flexible Algorithm
      Definition.

   Flexible Algorithm Participation:  per the data plane configuration
      state that expresses whether the node is participating in a
      particular Flexible Algorithm.  Not all routers in a given network
      need to participate in a given Flexible Algorithm.  The Flexible
      Algorithm(s) that a given router participates in is determined by
      configuration.

   IGP Algorithm:  value from the IANA "IGP Algorithm Types" registry
      defined under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters"
      registry group.  IGP Algorithms represent the triplet
      (calculation-type, metric-type, and constraints), where the second
      and third elements of the triplet MAY be unspecified.

   ABR:  Area Border Router.  In IS-IS terminology, it is also known as
      the Level 1 (L1) / Level 2 (L2) router.

   ASBR:  Autonomous System Border Router.

4.  Flexible Algorithm

   Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over a
   network.  Some networks are deployed as multiple planes.  A simple
   form of constraint may be to use a particular plane.  A more
   sophisticated form of constraint can include some extended metric, as
   described in [RFC8570].  Constraints that restrict paths to links
   with specific affinities or avoid links with specific affinities are
   also possible.  Combinations of these are also possible.

   To provide maximum flexibility, a mechanism is provided that allows a
   router to identify a particular calculation-type and metric-type,
   describe a particular set of constraints, and assign a numeric
   identifier, referred to as Flex-Algorithm, to the combination of that
   calculation-type, metric-type, and those constraints.  The mapping
   between the Flex-Algorithm and its meaning is flexible and defined by
   the user.  As long as all routers in the domain have a common
   understanding as to what a particular Flex-Algorithm represents, the
   resulting routing computation is consistent and traffic is not
   subject to any looping.

   The set consisting of (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type, and
   (c) a set of constraints is referred to as a Flexible Algorithm
   Definition.

   The Flex-Algorithm is a numeric identifier in the range 128-255 that
   is associated via configuration with the Flexible Algorithm
   Definition.

   The IANA "IGP Algorithm Types" registry defines the set of values for
   IGP Algorithms.  The following values are allocated by IANA from this
   registry for Flex-Algorithms:

      128-255 - Flex-Algorithms

5.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement

   To guarantee loop-free forwarding for paths computed for a particular
   Flex-Algorithm, all routers that (a) are configured to participate in
   a particular Flex-Algorithm and (b) are in the same Flex-Algorithm
   Definition advertisement scope MUST agree on the definition of the
   Flex-Algorithm.  The following procedures ensure this condition is
   fulfilled.

5.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) sub-TLV is used to
   advertise the definition of the Flex-Algorithm.

   The IS-IS FAD sub-TLV is advertised as a sub-TLV of the IS-IS Router
   CAPABILITY TLV-242, which is defined in [RFC7981].

   The IS-IS FAD 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     |Flex-Algorithm |  Metric-Type  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Calc-Type   |    Priority   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Sub-TLVs                             |
   +                                                               +
   |                            ...                                |

   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  26

      Length:  variable number of octets, dependent on the included sub-
         TLVs.

      Flex-Algorithm:  Flexible Algorithm number.  Single octet value
         between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Metric-Type:  type of metric from the IANA "IGP Metric-Type"
         registry (Section 18.1.2) to be used during the calculation.
         The following values are defined:

         0:  IGP Metric

         1:  Min Unidirectional Link Delay, as defined in Section 4.2 of
            [RFC8570], encoded as an application-specific link
            attribute, as specified in [RFC8919] and Section 12 of this
            document.

         2:  Traffic Engineering Default Metric, as defined in
            Section 3.7 of [RFC5305], encoded as an application-specific
            link attribute, as specified in [RFC8919] and Section 12 of
            this document.

      Calc-Type:  calculation-type.  Value from 0-127 inclusive from the
         IANA "IGP Algorithm Types" registry defined under the "Interior
         Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.  IGP Algorithms in
         the range of 0-127 have a defined triplet (calculation-type,
         metric-type, constraints).  When used to specify the
         calculation-type in the FAD sub-TLV, only the calculation-type
         defined for the specified IGP Algorithm is used.  The Metric/
         Constraints MUST NOT be inherited.  If the required
         calculation-type is Shortest Path First, the value 0 MUST
         appear in this field.

      Priority:  value between 0 and 255 inclusive that specifies the
         priority of the advertisement.  Numerically greater values are
         preferred.  Usage of the priority is described in Section 5.3.

      Sub-TLVs:  optional sub-TLVs.

   The IS-IS FAD sub-TLV MAY be advertised in a Label Switched Path
   (LSP) of any number.  The IS-IS router MAY advertise more than one
   IS-IS FAD sub-TLV for a given Flexible Algorithm (see Section 6).

   The IS-IS FAD sub-TLV has an area/level scope.  The Router Capability
   TLV in which the FAD sub-TLV is present MUST have the S bit clear.

   An IS-IS L1/L2 router MAY be configured to regenerate the winning FAD
   from level 2, without any modification to it, to the level 1 area.
   The regeneration of the FAD sub-TLV from level 2 to level 1 is
   determined by the L1/L2 router, not by the originator of the FAD
   advertisement in level 2.  In such a case, the regenerated FAD sub-
   TLV will be advertised in the level 1 Router Capability TLV
   originated by the L1/L2 router.

   An L1/L2 router MUST NOT regenerate any FAD sub-TLV from level 1 to
   level 2.

5.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

   The OSPF FAD TLV is advertised as a top-level TLV of the Router
   Information (RI) Link State Advertisement (LSA), which is defined in
   [RFC7770].

   The OSPF FAD 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Flex-Algorithm |   Metric-Type |   Calc-Type   |    Priority   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Sub-TLVs                           |
   +                                                               +
   |                               ...                             |

   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  16

      Length:  variable number of octets, dependent on the included sub-
         TLVs.

      Flex-Algorithm:  Flexible Algorithm number.  Single octet value
         between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Metric-Type:  type of metric from the IANA "IGP Metric-Type"
         registry (Section 18.1.2) to be used during the calculation.
         The following values are defined:

         0:  IGP Metric

         1:  Min Unidirectional Link Delay, as defined in Section 4.2 of
            [RFC7471], encoded as an application-specific link
            attribute, as specified in [RFC8920] and Section 12 of this
            document.

         2:  Traffic Engineering Metric, as defined in Section 2.5.5 of
            [RFC3630], encoded as an application-specific link
            attribute, as specified in [RFC8920] and Section 12 of this
            document.

      Calc-Type:  as described in Section 5.1.

      Priority:  as described in Section 5.1.

      Sub-TLVs:  optional sub-TLVs.

   When multiple OSPF FAD TLVs, for the same Flexible Algorithm, are
   received from a given router, the receiver MUST use the first
   occurrence of the TLV in the RI LSA.  If the OSPF FAD TLV, for the
   same Flex-Algorithm, appears in multiple RI LSAs that have different
   flooding scopes, the OSPF FAD TLV in the RI LSA with the area-scoped
   flooding scope MUST be used.  If the OSPF FAD TLV, for the same
   algorithm, appears in multiple RI LSAs that have the same flooding
   scope, the OSPF FAD TLV in the RI LSA with the numerically smallest
   Instance ID MUST be used and subsequent instances of the OSPF FAD TLV
   MUST be ignored.

   The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined opaque flooding
   scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)).  For the purpose of
   OSPF FAD TLV advertisement, area-scoped flooding is REQUIRED.  The AS
   flooding scope SHOULD NOT be used unless local configuration policy
   on the originating router indicates domain-wide flooding.

5.3.  Common Handling of the Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

   This section describes the protocol-independent handling of the FAD
   TLV (OSPF) or FAD sub-TLV (IS-IS).  We will refer to it as FAD TLV in
   this section, even though, in the case of IS-IS, it is a sub-TLV.

   The value of the Flex-Algorithm MUST be between 128 and 255
   inclusive.  If it is not, the FAD TLV MUST be ignored.

   Only a subset of the routers participating in the particular Flex-
   Algorithm need to advertise the definition of the Flex-Algorithm.

   Every router that is configured to participate in a particular Flex-
   Algorithm MUST select the Flex-Algorithm Definition based on the
   following ordered rules.  This allows for the consistent Flex-
   Algorithm Definition selection in cases where different routers
   advertise different definitions for a given Flex-Algorithm:

   1.  From the advertisements of the FAD in the area (including both
       locally generated advertisements and received advertisements),
       select the one(s) with the numerically greatest priority value.

   2.  If there are multiple advertisements of the FAD with the same
       numerically greatest priority, select the one that is originated
       from the router with the numerically greatest System-ID, in the
       case of IS-IS, or Router ID, in the case of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
       For IS-IS, the System-ID is described in [ISO10589].  For OSPFv2
       and OSPFv3, the standard Router ID is described in [RFC2328] and
       [RFC5340], respectively.

   The FAD selected according to these rules is also known as the
   "winning FAD".

   A router that is not configured to participate in a particular Flex-
   Algorithm MUST ignore FAD sub-TLV advertisements for such Flex-
   Algorithm.

   A router that is not participating in a particular Flex-Algorithm MAY
   advertise the FAD for such Flex-Algorithm.  Receiving routers MUST
   consider a received FAD advertisement regardless of the Flex-
   Algorithm participation of that FAD advertisement's originator.

   Any change in the Flex-Algorithm Definition may result in a temporary
   disruption of traffic that is forwarded based on such Flex-Algorithm
   paths.  The impact is similar to any other event that requires
   network-wide convergence.

   If a node is configured to participate in a particular Flexible
   Algorithm, but there is no valid Flex-Algorithm Definition available
   for it or the selected Flex-Algorithm Definition includes
   calculation-type, metric-type, constraint, flag, or sub-TLV that is
   not supported by the node, it MUST stop participating in such
   Flexible Algorithm.  That implies that it MUST NOT announce
   participation for such Flexible Algorithm, as specified in
   Section 11, and it MUST remove any forwarding state associated with
   it.

   The Flex-Algorithm Definition is topology independent.  It applies to
   all topologies that a router participates in.

6.  Sub-TLVs of IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV

   One of the limitations of IS-IS [ISO10589] is that the length of a
   TLV/sub-TLV is limited to a maximum of 255 octets.  For the FAD sub-
   TLV, there are a number of sub-sub-TLVs (defined below) that are
   supported.  For a given Flex-Algorithm, it is possible that the total
   number of octets required to completely define a FAD exceeds the
   maximum length supported by a single FAD sub-TLV.  In such cases, the
   FAD MAY be split into multiple such sub-TLVs, and the content of the
   multiple FAD sub-TLVs are combined to provide a complete FAD for the
   Flex-Algorithm.  In such a case, the fixed portion of the FAD (see
   Section 5.1) MUST be identical in all FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-
   Algorithm from a given IS.  In case the fixed portion of such FAD
   sub-TLVs differ, the values in the fixed portion in the FAD sub-TLV
   in the first occurrence in the lowest-numbered LSP from a given IS
   MUST be used.

   Any specification that introduces a new IS-IS FAD sub-sub-TLV MUST
   specify whether the FAD sub-TLV may appear multiple times in the set
   of FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS and how to
   handle them if multiple are allowed.

6.1.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm Definition can specify "colors" that are used
   by the operator to exclude links during the Flex-Algorithm path
   computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group (FAEAG) sub-TLV is
   used to advertise the exclude rule that is used during the Flex-
   Algorithm path calculation, as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS FAEAG sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  It
   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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  1

      Length:  variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
         Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group:  Extended Administrative Group, as
         defined in [RFC7308].

   The IS-IS FAEAG sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in a single
   IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  If it appears more than once, the IS-IS FAD sub-
   TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   The IS-IS FAEAG sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in the set of
   FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS.  If it
   appears more than once in such a set, the IS-IS FAEAG sub-TLV in the
   first occurrence in the lowest-numbered LSP from a given IS MUST be
   used, and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

6.2.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm Definition can specify "colors" that are used
   by the operator to include links during the Flex-Algorithm path
   computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV is used
   to advertise the include-any rule that is used during the Flex-
   Algorithm path calculation, as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV is a
   sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  It 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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  2

      Length:  variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
         Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group:  Extended Administrative Group, as
         defined in [RFC7308].

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in a single IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  If it appears
   more than once, the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV MUST be ignored by the
   receiver.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in the set of FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-
   Algorithm from a given IS.  If it appears more than once in such a
   set, the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV in
   the first occurrence in the lowest-numbered LSP from a given IS MUST
   be used, and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

6.3.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm Definition can specify "colors" that are used
   by the operator to include links during the Flex-Algorithm path
   computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV is used
   to advertise the include-all rule that is used during the Flex-
   Algorithm path calculation, as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV is a
   sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  It 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     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  3

      Length:  variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
         Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group:  Extended Administrative Group, as
         defined in [RFC7308].

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in a single IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  If it appears
   more than once, the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV MUST be ignored by the
   receiver.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in the set of FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-
   Algorithm from a given IS.  If it appears more than once in such a
   set, the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV in
   the first occurrence in the lowest-numbered LSP from a given IS MUST
   be used, and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

6.4.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags (FADF) sub-TLV is a
   sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  It 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                             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  4

      Length:  variable, number of octets of the Flags field.

      Flags:
                       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
                      |M| | |          ...
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...

         M-flag:  when set, the Flex-Algorithm-specific prefix metric
            MUST be used for inter-area and external prefix calculation.
            This flag is not applicable to prefixes advertised as SRv6
            locators.

   A new IANA "IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags" registry is
   defined for allocation of bits in the Flags field -- see
   Section 18.2.

   Bits are defined/sent starting with bit 0 defined above.  Additional
   bit definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD be assigned
   in ascending bit order to minimize the number of bits that will need
   to be transmitted.

   Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0.

   Bits that are not transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
   on receipt.

   The IS-IS FADF sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in a single IS-
   IS FAD sub-TLV.  If it appears more than once, the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV
   MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   The IS-IS FADF sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in the set of
   FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS.  If it
   appears more than once in such a set, the IS-IS FADF sub-TLV in the
   first occurrence in the lowest-numbered LSP from a given IS MUST be
   used, and any other occurrences MUST be ignored.

   If the IS-IS FADF sub-TLV is not present inside the IS-IS FAD sub-
   TLV, all the bits are assumed to be set to 0.

   If a node is configured to participate in a particular Flexible
   Algorithm, but the selected Flex-Algorithm Definition includes a bit
   in the IS-IS FADF sub-TLV that is not supported by the node, it MUST
   stop participating in such Flexible Algorithm.

   New flag bits may be defined in the future.  Implementations MUST
   check all advertised flag bits in the received IS-IS FADF sub-TLV --
   not just the subset currently defined.

   The M-flag MUST not be used when calculating prefix reachability for
   the SRv6 Locator prefix.

6.5.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV

   The Flexible Algorithm Definition can specify Shared Risk Link Groups
   (SRLGs) that the operator wants to exclude during the Flex-Algorithm
   path computation.

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG (FAESRLG) sub-TLV is used
   to advertise the exclude rule that is used during the Flex-Algorithm
   path calculation, as specified in Section 13.

   The IS-IS FAESRLG sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  It
   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 Value             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  5

      Length:  variable, dependent on number of SRLG values.  MUST be a
         multiple of 4 octets.

      Shared Risk Link Group Value:  SRLG value, as defined in
         [RFC5307].

   The IS-IS FAESRLG sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in a single
   IS-IS FAD sub-TLV.  If it appears more than once, the IS-IS FAD sub-
   TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   The IS-IS FAESRLG sub-TLV MAY appear more than once in the set of FAD
   sub-TLVs for a given Flex-Algorithm from a given IS.  This may be
   necessary in cases where the total number of SRLG values that are
   specified cause the FAD sub-TLV to exceed the maximum length of a
   single FAD sub-TLV.  In such a case, the receiver MUST use the union
   of all values across all IS-IS FAESRLG sub-TLVs from such set.

7.  Sub-TLVs of the OSPF FAD TLV

7.1.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group (FAEAG) sub-TLV is a
   sub-TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  Its usage is described in Section 6.1.
   It 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  1

      Length:  variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
         Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group:  Extended Administrative Group, as
         defined in [RFC7308].

   The OSPF FAEAG sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF FAD
   TLV.  If it appears more than once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored
   by the receiver.

7.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV is a sub-
   TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  The usage of this sub-TLV is described in
   Section 6.2.  It 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  2

      Length:  variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
         Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group:  Extended Administrative Group, as
         defined in [RFC7308].

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in an OSPF FAD TLV.  If it appears more than
   once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

7.3.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV is a sub-
   TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  The usage of this sub-TLV is described in
   Section 6.3.  It 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Extended Admin Group                     |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  3

      Length:  variable, dependent on the size of the Extended Admin
         Group.  MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Extended Administrative Group:  Extended Administrative Group, as
         defined in [RFC7308].

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group sub-TLV MUST NOT
   appear more than once in an OSPF FAD TLV.  If it appears more than
   once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.

7.4.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags (FADF) sub-TLV is a sub-
   TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  It 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                             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  4

      Length:  variable, dependent on the size of the Flags field.  MUST
         be a multiple of 4 octets.

      Flags:
                       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
                      |M| | |          ...
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...

         M-flag:  when set, the Flex-Algorithm-specific prefix and ASBR
            metric MUST be used for inter-area and external prefix
            calculation.  This flag is not applicable to prefixes
            advertised as SRv6 locators.

   A new IANA "IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags" registry is
   defined for allocation of bits in the Flags field -- see
   Section 18.2.

   Bits are defined/sent starting with bit 0 defined above.  Additional
   bit definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD be assigned
   in ascending bit order to minimize the number of bits that will need
   to be transmitted.

   Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0.

   Bits that are not transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
   on receipt.

   The OSPF FADF sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF FAD
   TLV.  If it appears more than once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored
   by the receiver.

   If the OSPF FADF sub-TLV is not present inside the OSPF FAD TLV, all
   the bits are assumed to be set to 0.

   If a node is configured to participate in a particular Flexible
   Algorithm, but the selected Flex-Algorithm Definition includes a bit
   in the OSPF FADF sub-TLV that is not supported by the node, it MUST
   stop participating in such Flexible Algorithm.

   New flag bits may be defined in the future.  Implementations MUST
   check all advertised flag bits in the received OSPF FADF sub-TLV --
   not just the subset currently defined.

   The M-flag MUST not be used when calculating prefix reachability for
   the SRv6 Locator prefix.

7.5.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG (FAESRLG) sub-TLV is a sub-
   TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV.  Its usage is described in Section 6.5.  It
   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 Value                |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                            ...                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  5

      Length:  variable, dependent on the number of SRLGs.  MUST be a
         multiple of 4 octets.

      Shared Risk Link Group Value:  SRLG value, as defined in
         [RFC4203].

   The OSPF FAESRLG sub-TLV MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF
   FAD TLV.  If it appears more than once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be
   ignored by the receiver.

8.  IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV

   The IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) sub-TLV supports
   the advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm-specific prefix metric
   associated with a given prefix advertisement.

   The IS-IS FAPM sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237
   and 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     |Flex-Algorithm |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Metric                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  6

      Length:  5 octets

      Flex-Algorithm:  single octet value between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Metric:  4 octets of metric information.

   The IS-IS FAPM sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times in its parent TLV.
   If it appears more than once with the same Flex-Algorithm value, the
   first instance MUST be used and any subsequent instances MUST be
   ignored.

   If a prefix is advertised with a Flex-Algorithm prefix metric larger
   than MAX_PATH_METRIC, as defined in [RFC5305], this prefix MUST NOT
   be considered during the Flexible Algorithm computation.

   The usage of the Flex-Algorithm prefix metric is described in
   Section 13.

   The IS-IS FAPM sub-TLV MUST NOT be advertised as a sub-TLV of the IS-
   IS SRv6 Locator TLV [RFC9352].  The IS-IS SRv6 Locator TLV includes
   the Algorithm and Metric fields, which MUST be used instead.  If the
   FAPM sub-TLV is present as a sub-TLV of the IS-IS SRv6 Locator TLV in
   the received LSP, such FAPM sub-TLV MUST be ignored.

9.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) sub-TLV supports the
   advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm-specific prefix metric associated
   with a given prefix advertisement.

   The OSPF FAPM sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the:

   *  OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684] and

   *  following OSPFv3 TLVs, as defined in [RFC8362]:

      -  Inter-Area Prefix TLV

      -  External-Prefix TLV

   The OSPF FAPM 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Flex-Algorithm |     Flags     |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Metric                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  3 for OSPFv2, and 26 for OSPFv3

      Length:  8 octets

      Flex-Algorithm:  single octet value between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Flags:  1-octet value

                       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      |E|             |
                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         E bit:  position 0: The type of external metric.  If the bit is
            set, the metric specified is a Type 2 external metric.  This
            bit is applicable only to OSPF external and Not-So-Stubby
            Area (NSSA) external prefixes.  This is semantically the
            same as the E bit in Appendix A.4.5 of [RFC2328] and
            Appendix A.4.7 of [RFC5340] for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3,
            respectively.

         Bits 1 through 7:  MUST be cleared by the originator and
            ignored by the receiver.

      Reserved:  MUST be set to 0 and ignored at reception.

      Metric:  4 octets of metric information.

   The OSPF FAPM sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times in its parent TLV.
   If it appears more than once with the same Flex-Algorithm value, the
   first instance MUST be used and any subsequent instances MUST be
   ignored.

   The usage of the Flex-Algorithm prefix metric is described in
   Section 13.

10.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Reachability Advertisement

   An OSPF ABR advertises the reachability of ASBRs in its attached
   areas to enable routers within those areas to perform route
   calculations for external prefixes advertised by the ASBRs.  OSPF
   extensions for advertisement of Flex-Algorithm-specific reachability
   and the metric for ASBRs is similarly required for Flex-Algorithm
   external prefix computations, as described further in Section 13.1.

10.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR LSA

   The OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR (EIA-ASBR) LSA is an OSPF Opaque
   LSA [RFC5250] that is used to advertise additional attributes related
   to the reachability of the OSPFv2 ASBR that is external to the area
   yet internal to the OSPF domain.  Semantically, the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR
   LSA is equivalent to the fixed format Type 4 summary-LSA [RFC2328].
   Unlike the Type 4 summary-LSA, the Link State ID (LSID) of the EIA-
   ASBR LSA does not carry the ASBR Router ID -- the ASBR Router ID is
   carried in the body of the LSA.  The OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA is
   advertised by an OSPFv2 ABR, and its flooding is defined to be area-
   scoped only.

   An OSPFv2 ABR generates the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR when it is
   advertising the Type 4 summary-LSA for it and has the need for
   advertising additional attributes for that ASBR beyond what is
   conveyed in the fixed-format Type 4 summary-LSA.  An OSPFv2 ABR MUST
   NOT advertise the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR for which it is not
   advertising the Type 4 summary-LSA.  This ensures that the ABR does
   not generate the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR to which it does not have
   reachability in the base OSPFv2 topology calculation.  The OSPFv2 ABR
   SHOULD NOT advertise the EIA-ASBR LSA for an ASBR when it does not
   have additional attributes to advertise for that ASBR.

   The OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            LS age             |     Options   |   LS Type     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Opaque Type  |                 Opaque ID                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Advertising Router                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     LS sequence number                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         LS checksum           |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                            TLVs                             -+
   |                             ...                               |

   The LS age and Options fields are as defined in Appendix A.4.1 of
   [RFC2328].

   The LS Type MUST be 10, indicating that the Opaque LSA flooding scope
   is area-local [RFC5250].

   The Opaque Type used by the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA is 11.  The Opaque
   Type is used to differentiate the various types of OSPFv2 Opaque LSAs
   and is described in Section 3 of [RFC5250].

   The Opaque ID field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple
   OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSAs.  For OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSAs, the Opaque ID has no
   semantic significance other than to differentiate OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR
   LSAs originated by the same OSPFv2 ABR.  If multiple OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR
   LSAs specify the same ASBR, the attributes from the Opaque LSA with
   the lowest Opaque ID SHOULD be used.

   The Advertising Router, LS sequence number, and LS checksum fields
   are as defined in Appendix A.4.1 of [RFC2328].

   The Length field is as defined in Appendix A.4.1 of [RFC2328].  It
   represents the total length (in octets) of the Opaque LSA, including
   the LSA header and all TLVs (including padding).

   The format of the TLVs within the body of the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA is
   the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to
   OSPFv2 [RFC3630].  The variable TLV section consists of one or more
   nested TLV tuples.  Nested TLVs are also referred to as sub-TLVs.
   The TLV Length field defines the length of the value portion in
   octets (thus, a TLV with no value portion would have a length of 0).
   The TLV is padded to 4-octet alignment; padding is not included in
   the Length field (so a 3-octet value would have a length of 3, but
   the total size of the TLV would be 8 octets).  Nested TLVs are also
   32-bit aligned.  For example, a 1-octet value would have the Length
   field set to 1, and 3 octets of padding would be added to the end of
   the value portion of the TLV.  The padding is composed of zeros.

10.1.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLV

   The OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR (EIA-ASBR) TLV is a top-level TLV
   of the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA and is used to advertise additional
   attributes associated with the reachability of an ASBR.

   The OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR 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              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        ASBR Router ID                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   .                                                               .
   .                            Sub-TLVs                           .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  1

      Length:  variable number of octets.

      ASBR Router ID:  4 octets carrying the OSPF Router ID of the ASBR
         whose information is being carried.

      Sub-TLVs:  variable

   Only a single OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR TLV MUST be advertised in each OSPFv2
   EIA-ASBR LSA, and the receiver MUST ignore all instances of this TLV
   other than the first one in an LSA.

   The OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR TLV MUST be present inside an OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA
   and MUST include at least a single sub-TLV; otherwise, the OSPFv2
   EIA-ASBR LSA MUST be ignored by the receiver.

10.2.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV

   The OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric (FAAM) sub-TLV supports the
   advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm-specific metric associated with a
   given ASBR reachability advertisement by an ABR.

   The OSPF FAAM sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the:

   *  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLV, as defined in Section 10.1.1,
      and

   *  OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router TLV, as defined in [RFC8362].

   The OSPF FAAM 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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Flex-Algorithm |                   Reserved                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Metric                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:
      Type:  1 for OSPFv2, and 33 for OSPFv3

      Length:  8 octets

      Flex-Algorithm:  single octet value between 128 and 255 inclusive.

      Reserved:  3 octets.  MUST be set to 0 and ignored at reception.

      Metric:  4 octets of metric information.

   The OSPF FAAM sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times in its parent TLV.
   If it appears more than once with the same Flex-Algorithm value, the
   first instance MUST be used and any subsequent instances MUST be
   ignored.

   The advertisement of the ASBR reachability using the OSPF FAAM sub-
   TLV inside the OSPFv2 EIA-ASBR LSA follows Section 12.4.3 of
   [RFC2328] and inside the OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA follows
   Section 4.8.5 of [RFC5340].  The reachability of the ASBR is
   evaluated in the context of the specific Flex-Algorithm.

   The FAAM computed by the ABR will be equal to the metric to reach the
   ASBR for a given Flex-Algorithm in a source area or the cumulative
   metric via an ABR(s) when the ASBR is in a remote area.  This is
   similar in nature to how the metric is set when the ASBR reachability
   metric is computed in the default algorithm for the metric in the
   OSPFv2 Type 4 ASBR summary-LSA and the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router-LSA.

   An OSPF ABR MUST NOT include the OSPF FAAM sub-TLV with a specific
   Flex-Algorithm in its reachability advertisement for an ASBR between
   areas unless that ASBR is reachable for it in the context of that
   specific Flex-Algorithm.

   An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF FAAM sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
   reachability advertisement between areas for any Flex-Algorithm for
   which the winning FAD includes the M-flag and the ASBR is reachable
   in the context of that specific Flex-Algorithm.

   OSPF routers MUST use the OSPF FAAM sub-TLV to calculate the
   reachability of the ASBRs if the winning FAD for the specific Flex-
   Algorithm includes the M-flag.  OSPF routers MUST NOT use the OSPF
   FAAM sub-TLV to calculate the reachability of the ASBRs for the
   specific Flex-Algorithm if the winning FAD for such Flex-Algorithm
   does not include the M-flag.  Instead, the OSPFv2 Type 4 summary-LSAs
   or the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router-LSAs MUST be used, as specified in
   Section 16.2 of [RFC2328] and Section 4.8.5 of [RFC5340] for OSPFv2
   and OSPFv3, respectively.

   The processing of a new or changed OSPF FAAM sub-TLV triggers the
   processing of external routes similar to what is described in
   Section 16.5 of [RFC2328] for OSPFv2 and Section 4.8.5 of [RFC5340]
   for OSPFv3 for the specific Flex-Algorithm.  The OSPF external and
   NSSA external route calculation should be limited to a Flex-
   Algorithm(s) for which the winning FAD(s) includes the M-flag.

   Processing of the OSPF FAAM sub-TLV does not require the existence of
   the equivalent OSPFv2 Type 4 summary-LSA or the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-
   Router-LSA that is advertised by the same ABR inside the area.  The
   presence of the base LSA is not mandatory for the usage of the
   extended LSA with the OSPF FAAM sub-TLV.

11.  Advertisement of Node Participation in a Flex-Algorithm

   When a router is configured to participate in a particular Flex-
   Algorithm and is advertising such participation, it is participating
   in that Flex-Algorithm.

   Paths for various data planes MAY be computed for a specific Flex-
   Algorithm.  Each data plane uses its own specific forwarding over
   such Flex-Algorithm paths.  To guarantee the presence of the data-
   plane-specific forwarding, associated with a particular Flex-
   Algorithm, a router MUST advertise its participation for a particular
   Flex-Algorithm for each data plane.  Some data planes may share a
   common participation advertisement (e.g., SR-MPLS and SRv6).

   Advertisement of the participation for any particular Flex-Algorithm
   in any data plane is subject to the condition specified in
   Section 5.3.

11.1.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment Routing

   [RFC8665], [RFC8666], and [RFC8667] (IGP Segment Routing extensions)
   describe how the SR-Algorithm is used to compute the IGP best path.

   Routers advertise support for the SR-Algorithm as a node capability,
   as described in the above-mentioned IGP Segment Routing extensions.
   To advertise participation for a particular Flex-Algorithm for
   Segment Routing, including both SR-MPLS and SRv6, the Flex-Algorithm
   value MUST be advertised in the SR-Algorithm TLV (OSPF) or sub-TLV
   (IS-IS).

   Segment Routing Flex-Algorithm participation advertisement is
   topology independent.  When a router advertises participation in an
   SR-Algorithm, the participation applies to all topologies in which
   the advertising node participates.

11.2.  Advertisement of Node Participation for Other Data Planes

   This section describes considerations related to how other data
   planes can advertise their participation in a specific Flex-
   Algorithm.

   Data-plane-specific Flex-Algorithm participation advertisements MAY
   be topology specific or MAY be topology independent, depending on the
   data plane itself.

   Data-plane-specific advertisement for Flex-Algorithm participation
   MUST be defined for each data plane and is outside the scope of this
   document.

12.  Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm

   Various link attributes may be used during the Flex-Algorithm path
   calculation.  For example, include or exclude rules based on link
   affinities can be part of the Flex-Algorithm Definition, as defined
   in Sections 6 and 7.

   Application-specific link attributes, as specified in [RFC8919] or
   [RFC8920], that are to be used during Flex-Algorithm calculation MUST
   use the Application-Specific Link Attribute (ASLA) advertisements
   defined in [RFC8919] or [RFC8920] unless, in the case of IS-IS, the
   L-flag is set in the ASLA advertisement.  When the L-flag is set,
   then legacy advertisements MUST be used, subject to the procedures
   and constraints defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8919] and Section 6.

   The mandatory use of ASLA advertisements applies to link attributes
   specifically mentioned in this document (Min Unidirectional Link
   Delay, TE Default Metric, Administrative Group, Extended
   Administrative Group, and Shared Risk Link Group) and any other link
   attributes that may be used in support of Flex-Algorithm in the
   future.

   A new Application Identifier Bit is defined to indicate that the ASLA
   advertisement is associated with the Flex-Algorithm application.
   This bit is set in the Standard Application Bit Mask (SABM) defined
   in [RFC8919] or [RFC8920]:

   Bit 3:  Flexible Algorithm (X-bit)

   ASLA Admin Group Advertisements to be used by the Flexible Algorithm
   application MAY use either the Administrative Group or Extended
   Administrative Group encodings.

   A receiver supporting this specification MUST accept both ASLA
   Administrative Group and Extended Administrative Group TLVs, as
   defined in [RFC8919] or [RFC8920].  In the case of IS-IS, if the
   L-flag is set in the ASLA advertisement, as defined in Section 4.2 of
   [RFC8919], then the receiver MUST be able to accept both the
   Administrative Group TLV, as defined in [RFC5305], and the Extended
   Administrative Group TLV, as defined in [RFC7308].

13.  Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths

   A router MUST be configured to participate in a given Flex-Algorithm
   K and MUST select the FAD based on the rules defined in Section 5.3
   before it can compute any path for that Flex-Algorithm.

   No specific two-way connectivity check is performed during the Flex-
   Algorithm path computation.  The result of the existing Flex-
   Algorithm-agnostic, two-way connectivity check is used during the
   Flex-Algorithm path computation.

   As described in Section 11, participation for any particular Flex-
   Algorithm MUST be advertised on a per data plane basis.  Calculation
   of the paths for any particular Flex-Algorithm is data plane
   specific.

   Multiple data planes MAY use the same Flex-Algorithm value at the
   same time and, as such, share the FAD for it.  Traffic for each data
   plane will be forwarded based on the data-plane-specific forwarding
   entries.

   The Flex-Algorithm Definition is data plane independent and is used
   by all Flex-Algorithm data planes.

   The way various data planes handle nodes that do not participate in
   Flexible Algorithm is data plane specific.  If the data plane only
   wants to consider participating nodes during the Flex-Algorithm
   calculation, then when computing paths for a given Flex-Algorithm,
   all nodes that do not advertise participation for that Flex-Algorithm
   in their data-plane-specific advertisements MUST be pruned from the
   topology.  Segment Routing, including both SR-MPLS and SRv6, are data
   planes that MUST use such pruning when computing Flex-Algorithm
   paths.

   When computing the path for a given Flex-Algorithm, the metric-type
   that is part of the Flex-Algorithm Definition (Section 5) MUST be
   used.

   When computing the path for a given Flex-Algorithm, the calculation-
   type that is part of the Flex-Algorithm Definition (Section 5) MUST
   be used.

   Various links that include or exclude rules can be part of the Flex-
   Algorithm Definition.  To refer to a particular bit within an Admin
   Group or Extended Admin Group, we use the term "color".

   Rules, in the order as specified below, MUST be used to prune links
   from the topology during the Flex-Algorithm computation.

   For all links in the topology:

   1.  Check if any exclude Administrative Group rule is part of the
       Flex-Algorithm Definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if
       any color that is part of the exclude rule is also set on the
       link.  If such a color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the
       computation.

   2.  Check if any exclude SRLG rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
       Definition.  If such exclude rule exists, check if the link is
       part of any SRLG that is also part of the SRLG exclude rule.  If
       the link is part of such SRLG, the link MUST be pruned from the
       computation.

   3.  Check if any include-any Administrative Group rule is part of the
       Flex-Algorithm Definition.  If such include-any rule exists,
       check if any color that is part of the include-any rule is also
       set on the link.  If no such color is set, the link MUST be
       pruned from the computation.

   4.  Check if any include-all Administrative Group rule is part of the
       Flex-Algorithm Definition.  If such include-all rule exists,
       check if all colors that are part of the include-all rule are
       also set on the link.  If all such colors are not set on the
       link, the link MUST be pruned from the computation.

   5.  If the Flex-Algorithm Definition uses something other than the
       IGP metric (Section 5), and such metric is not advertised for the
       particular link in a topology for which the computation is done,
       such link MUST be pruned from the computation.  A metric of value
       0 MUST NOT be assumed in such a case.

13.1.  Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations

   Any IGP Shortest Path Tree calculation is limited to a single area.
   This applies to Flex-Algorithm calculations as well.  Given that the
   computing router does not have visibility of the topology of the next
   areas or domain, the Flex-Algorithm-specific path to an inter-area or
   inter-domain prefix will be computed for the local area only.  The
   egress L1/L2 router (ABR in OSPF), or ASBR for an inter-domain case,
   will be selected based on the best path for the given Flex-Algorithm
   in the local area, and such egress ABR or ASBR router will be
   responsible to compute the best Flex-Algorithm-specific path over the
   next area or domain.  This may produce an end-to-end path, which is
   suboptimal based on Flex-Algorithm constraints.  In cases where the
   ABR or ASBR has no reachability to a prefix for a given Flex-
   Algorithm in the next area or domain, the traffic could be dropped by
   the ABR/ASBR.

   To allow the optimal end-to-end path for an inter-area or inter-
   domain prefix for any Flex-Algorithm to be computed, the FAPM has
   been defined in Sections 8 and 9.  For external route calculation for
   prefixes originated by ASBRs in remote areas in OSPF, the FAAM has
   been defined in Section 10.2 for the ABR to indicate its ASBR
   reachability along with the metric for the specific Flex-Algorithm.

   If the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3
   includes the M-flag, an ABR or an ASBR MUST include the FAPM (see
   Sections 8 and 9) when advertising the prefix that is reachable in a
   given Flex-Algorithm between areas or domains.  Such metric will be
   equal to the metric to reach the prefix for that Flex-Algorithm in
   its source area or domain.  This is similar in nature to how the
   metric is set when prefixes are advertised between areas or domains
   for the default algorithm.  When a prefix is unreachable in its
   source area or domain in a specific Flex-Algorithm, then an ABR or
   ASBR MUST NOT include the FAPM for that Flex-Algorithm when
   advertising the prefix between areas or domains.

   If the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3
   includes the M-flag, the FAPM MUST be used during the calculation of
   prefix reachability for the inter-area and external prefixes.  If the
   FAPM for the Flex-Algorithm is not advertised with the inter-area or
   external prefix reachability advertisement, the prefix MUST be
   considered as unreachable for that Flex-Algorithm.  Similarly, in the
   case of OSPF, for ASBRs in remote areas, if the FAAM is not
   advertised by the local ABR(s), the ASBR MUST be considered as
   unreachable for that Flex-Algorithm, and the external prefix
   advertisements from such an ASBR are not considered for that Flex-
   Algorithm.

   The Flex-Algorithm prefix metrics and the OSPF Flex-Algorithm ASBR
   metrics MUST NOT be used during the Flex-Algorithm computation unless
   the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3 includes
   the M-flag, as described in Sections 6.4 or 7.4.

   In the case of OSPF, when calculating external routes in a Flex-
   Algorithm, if the winning FAD includes the M-flag, and the
   advertising ASBR is in a remote area, the metric will be the sum of
   the following:

   *  the FAPM for that Flex-Algorithm advertised with the external
      route by the ASBR

   *  the metric to reach the ASBR for that Flex-Algorithm from the
      local ABR, i.e., the FAAM for that Flex-Algorithm advertised by
      the ABR in the local area for that ASBR

   *  the Flex-Algorithm-specific metric to reach the local ABR

   This is similar in nature to how the metric is calculated for routes
   learned from remote ASBRs in the default algorithm using the OSPFv2
   Type 4 ASBR summary-LSA and the OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router-LSA.

   If the FAD selected based on the rules defined in Section 5.3 does
   not include the M-flag, then the IGP metrics associated with the
   prefix reachability advertisements used by the base IS-IS and OSPF
   protocol MUST be used for the Flex-Algorithm route computation.
   Similarly, in the case of external route calculations in OSPF, the
   ASBR reachability is determined based on the base OSPFv2 Type 4
   summary-LSA and the OSFPv3 Inter-Area-Router-LSA.

   It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the Flex-Algorithm for inter-area or
   inter-domain prefix reachability without the M-flag set.  The reason
   is that, without the explicit Flex-Algorithm prefix metric
   advertisement (and the Flex-Algorithm ASBR metric advertisement in
   the case of OSPF external route calculation), it is not possible to
   conclude whether the ABR or ASBR has reachability to the inter-area
   or inter-domain prefix for a given Flex-Algorithm in the next area or
   domain.  Sending the Flex-Algorithm traffic for such a prefix towards
   the ABR or ASBR may result in traffic looping or persistent traffic
   drop.

   During the route computation, it is possible for the Flex-Algorithm-
   specific metric to exceed the maximum value that can be stored in an
   unsigned 32-bit variable.  In such scenarios, the value MUST be
   considered to be of value 0xFFFFFFFF during the computation and
   advertised as such.

   The FAPM MUST NOT be advertised with IS-IS L1 or L2 intra-area,
   OSPFv2 intra-area, or OSPFv3 intra-area routes.  If the FAPM is
   advertised for these route-types, it MUST be ignored during the
   prefix reachability calculation.

   The M-flag in the FAD is not applicable to prefixes advertised as
   SRv6 locators.  The IS-IS SRv6 Locator TLV [RFC9352] includes the
   Algorithm and Metric fields.  When the SRv6 Locator is advertised
   between areas or domains, the Metric field in the Locator TLV of IS-
   IS MUST be used irrespective of the M-flag in the FAD advertisement.

   OSPF external and NSSA external prefix advertisements MAY include a
   non-zero forwarding address in the prefix advertisements in the base
   protocol.  In such a scenario, the Flex-Algorithm-specific
   reachability of the external prefix is determined by Flex-Algorithm-
   specific reachability of the forwarding address.

   In OSPF, the procedures for translation of NSSA external prefix
   advertisements into external prefix advertisements performed by an
   NSSA ABR [RFC3101] remain unchanged for Flex-Algorithm.  An NSSA
   translator MUST include the OSPF FAPM sub-TLVs for all Flex-
   Algorithms that are in the original NSSA external prefix
   advertisement from the NSSA ASBR in the translated external prefix
   advertisement generated by it, regardless of its participation in
   those Flex-Algorithms or its having reachability to the NSSA ASBR in
   those Flex-Algorithms.

   An area could become partitioned from the perspective of the Flex-
   Algorithm due to the constraints and/or metric being used for it
   while maintaining the continuity in the base algorithm.  When that
   happens, some destinations inside that area could become unreachable
   in that Flex-Algorithm.  These destinations will not be able to use
   an inter-area path.  This is the consequence of the fact that the
   inter-area prefix reachability advertisement would not be available
   for these intra-area destinations within the area.  It is RECOMMENDED
   to minimize the risk of such partitioning by providing enough
   redundancy inside the area for each Flex-Algorithm being used.

14.  Flex-Algorithm and Forwarding Plane

   This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used in
   forwarding.

14.1.  Segment Routing MPLS Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm

   This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used with SR MPLS
   forwarding.

   Prefix-SID advertisements include an SR-Algorithm value and, as such,
   are associated with the specified SR-Algorithm.  Prefix-SIDs are also
   associated with a specific topology that is inherited from the
   associated prefix reachability advertisement.  When the algorithm
   value advertised is a Flex-Algorithm value, the Prefix-SID is
   associated with paths calculated using that Flex-Algorithm in the
   associated topology.

   A Flex-Algorithm path MUST be installed in the MPLS forwarding plane
   using the MPLS label that corresponds to the Prefix-SID that was
   advertised for that Flex-algorithm.  If the Prefix-SID for a given
   Flex-Algorithm is not known, the Flex-Algorithm-specific path cannot
   be installed in the MPLS forwarding plane.

   Traffic that is supposed to be routed via Flex-Algorithm-specific
   paths MUST be dropped when there are no such paths available.

   Loop Free Alternate (LFA) paths ([RFC6571] or its variants) for a
   given Flex-Algorithm MUST be computed using the same constraints as
   the calculation of the primary paths for that Flex-Algorithm.  LFA
   paths MUST only use Prefix-SIDs advertised specifically for the given
   algorithm.  LFA paths MUST NOT use an Adjacency SID that belongs to a
   link that has been pruned from the Flex-Algorithm computation.

   If LFA protection is being used to protect a given Flex-Algorithm
   path, all routers in the area participating in the given Flex-
   Algorithm SHOULD advertise at least one Flex-Algorithm-specific Node-
   SID.  These Node-SIDs are used to steer traffic over the LFA-computed
   backup path.

14.2.  SRv6 Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm

   This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used with SRv6
   forwarding.

   In SRv6, a node is provisioned with a (topology, algorithm) specific
   locator for each of the topology/algorithm pairs supported by that
   node.  Each locator is an aggregate prefix for all SIDs provisioned
   on that node that have the matching topology/algorithm.

   The SRv6 locator advertisement in IS-IS [RFC9352] includes the Multi-
   Topology Identifier (MTID) value that associates the locator with a
   specific topology.  SRv6 locator advertisements also include an
   algorithm value that explicitly associates the locator with a
   specific algorithm.  When the algorithm value advertised with a
   locator represents a Flex-Algorithm, the paths to the locator prefix
   MUST be calculated using the specified Flex-Algorithm in the
   associated topology.

   Forwarding entries for the locator prefixes advertised in IS-IS MUST
   be installed in the forwarding plane of the receiving SRv6-capable
   routers when the associated topology/algorithm is participating in
   them.  Forwarding entries for locators associated with Flex-
   Algorithms in which the node is not participating MUST NOT be
   installed in the forwarding plane.

   When the locator is associated with a Flex-Algorithm, LFA paths to
   the locator prefix MUST be calculated using such Flex-Algorithm in
   the associated topology to guarantee that they follow the same
   constraints as the calculation of the primary paths.  LFA paths MUST
   only use SRv6 SIDs advertised specifically for the given Flex-
   Algorithm.

   If LFA protection is being used to protect locators associated with a
   given Flex-Algorithm, all routers in the area participating in the
   given Flex-Algorithm SHOULD advertise at least one Flex-Algorithm-
   specific locator and END SID per node and one END.X SID for every
   link that has not been pruned from such Flex-Algorithm computation.
   These locators and SIDs are used to steer traffic over the LFA-
   computed backup path.

14.3.  Other Data Planes' Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm

   Any data plane that wants to use Flex-Algorithm-specific forwarding
   needs to install some form of Flex-Algorithm-specific forwarding
   entries.

   Data-plane-specific forwarding for Flex-Algorithms MUST be defined
   for each data plane and is outside the scope of this document.

15.  Operational Considerations

15.1.  Inter-area Considerations

   The scope of the Flex-Algorithm computation and the scope of the FAD
   is an area.  In IS-IS, the Router Capability TLV in which the FAD
   sub-TLV is advertised MUST have the S bit clear, which prevents it
   from being flooded outside the level in which it was originated.
   Even though in OSPF the FAD sub-TLV can be flooded in an RI LSA that
   has an AS flooding scope, the FAD selection is performed for each
   individual area in which it is being used.

   There is no requirement for the FAD for a particular Flex-Algorithm
   to be identical in all areas in the network.  For example, traffic
   for the same Flex-Algorithm may be optimized for minimal delay (e.g.,
   using delay metric) in one area or level while being optimized for
   available bandwidth (e.g., using IGP metric) in another area or
   level.

   As described in Section 5.1, IS-IS allows the regeneration of the
   winning FAD from level 2, without any modification to it, into a
   level 1 area.  This allows the operator to configure the FAD in one
   or multiple routers in level 2, without the need to repeat the same
   task in each level 1 area, if the intent is to have the same FAD for
   the particular Flex-Algorithm across all levels.  This can similarly
   be achieved in OSPF by using the AS flooding scope of the RI LSA in
   which the FAD sub-TLV for the particular Flex-Algorithm is
   advertised.

   Regeneration of the FAD from a level 1 area to the level 2 area is
   not supported in IS-IS, so if the intent is to regenerate the FAD
   between IS-IS levels, the FAD MUST be defined on a router(s) that is
   in level 2.  In OSPF, the FAD definition can be done in any area and
   propagated to all routers in the OSPF routing domain by using the AS
   flooding scope of the RI LSA.

15.2.  Usage of the SRLG Exclude Rule with Flex-Algorithm

   There are two different ways in which SRLG information can be used
   with Flex-Algorithms:

   *  In a context of a single Flex-Algorithm, it can be used for
      computation of backup paths, as described in
      [RTGWG-SEGMENT-ROUTING-TI-LFA].  This usage does not require
      association of any specific SRLG constraint with the given Flex-
      Algorithm Definition.

   *  In the context of multiple Flex-Algorithms, it can be used for
      creating disjoint sets of paths by pruning the links belonging to
      a specific SRLG from the topology on which a specific Flex-
      Algorithm computes its paths.  This usage:

      -  facilitates the usage of already deployed SRLG configurations
         for the setup of disjoint paths between two or more Flex-
         Algorithms and

      -  requires explicit association of a given Flex-Algorithm with a
         specific set of SRLG constraints, as defined in Sections 6.5
         and 7.5.

   The two usages mentioned above are orthogonal.

15.3.  Max-Metric Consideration

   Both IS-IS and OSPF have a mechanism to set the IGP metric on a link
   to a value that would make the link either unreachable or serve as
   the link of last resort.  Similar functionality would be needed for
   the Min Unidirectional Link Delay and TE metric, as these can be used
   to compute Flex-Algorithm paths.

   The link can be made unreachable for all Flex-Algorithms that use the
   Min Unidirectional Link Delay as a metric, as described in
   Section 5.1, by removing the Flex-Algorithm ASLA Min Unidirectional
   Link Delay advertisement for the link.  The link can be made the link
   of last resort by setting the delay value in the Flex-Algorithm ASLA
   delay advertisement for the link to the value of 16,777,215 (2^24 -
   1).

   The link can be made unreachable for all Flex-Algorithms that use the
   TE metric, as described in Section 5.1, by removing the Flex-
   Algorithm ASLA TE metric advertisement for the link.  The link can be
   made the link of last resort by setting the TE metric value in the
   Flex-Algorithm ASLA delay advertisement for the link to the value of
   (2^24 - 1) in IS-IS and (2^32 - 1) in OSPF.

15.4.  Flexible Algorithm Definition and Changes

   When configuring a node to participate in a specific Flex-Algorithm,
   the components of the FAD (calculation-type, metric-type, and
   constraints) should be considered carefully.  The configuration of
   participation in a particular Flex-Algorithm doesn't guarantee that
   the node will actively participate in it, because it may not support
   the calculation-type, the metric-type, or some constraint advertised
   by the winning FAD (see Section 5.3).  Changes in the FAD
   configuration should also be considered in light of the capabilities
   of the participating routers in the scope of the FAD advertisement.

   As Section 5.3 notes, a change in the Flex-Algorithm Definition may
   require network-wide Shortest Path First (SPF) recomputation and
   network reconvergence.  This potential for disruption should be taken
   into consideration when planning and making changes to the FAD.

15.5.  Number of Flex-Algorithms

   The maximum number of Flex-Algorithms is determined by the algorithm
   range 128-255, as specified in Section 4.  Although possible, it is
   not expected that all of them will be used simultaneously.
   Typically, only a limited subset of Flex-Algorithms is expected to be
   deployed in the network.

16.  Backward Compatibility

   This extension brings no new backward-compatibility issues.  IS-IS,
   OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 all have well-defined handling of unrecognized
   TLVs and sub-TLVs that allows the introduction of new extensions,
   similar to those defined here, without introducing any
   interoperability issues.

17.  Security Considerations

   This document adds two new ways to disrupt IGP networks:

   *  An attacker can hijack a particular Flex-Algorithm by advertising
      a FAD with a priority of 255 (or any priority higher than that of
      the legitimate nodes).

   *  An attacker could make it look like a router supports a particular
      Flex-Algorithm when it actually doesn't, or vice versa.

   Both of these attacks can be addressed by the existing security
   extensions, as described in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] for IS-IS, in
   [RFC2328] and [RFC7474] for OSPFv2, and in [RFC4552] and [RFC5340]
   for OSPFv3.

   If the node that is authenticated is taken over by an attacker, such
   rogue node can advertise the FAD for any Flex-Algorithm.  Doing so
   may result in traffic for such Flex-Algorithm to be misrouted, or not
   delivered at all, for example, by using an unsupported metric-type,
   calculation-type, or constraint.  Such attack is not preventable
   through authentication, and it is not different from advertising any
   other incorrect information through IS-IS or OSPF.

18.  IANA Considerations

18.1.  IGP IANA Considerations

18.1.1.  IGP Algorithm Types Registry

   This document makes the following registration in the "IGP Algorithm
   Types" registry:

          +=========+=====================+=====================+
          | Value   | Description         | Reference           |
          +=========+=====================+=====================+
          | 128-255 | Flexible Algorithms | RFC 9350, Section 4 |
          +---------+---------------------+---------------------+

                   Table 1: IGP Algorithm Types Registry

18.1.2.  IGP Metric-Type Registry

   IANA has created the "IGP Metric-Type" registry within the "Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry group.  The registration
   policy is "Standards Action" [RFC8126] [RFC7120].  Values are
   assigned from the range 0-255 and have been registered as follows.

        +======+======================================+===========+
        | Type | Description                          | Reference |
        +======+======================================+===========+
        | 0    | IGP Metric                           | RFC 9350, |
        |      |                                      | Section   |
        |      |                                      | 5.1       |
        +------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
        | 1    | Min Unidirectional Link Delay as     | RFC 9350, |
        |      | defined in [RFC8570], Section 4.2    | Section   |
        |      | and [RFC7471], Section 4.2           | 5.1       |
        +------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
        | 2    | Traffic Engineering Default Metric   | RFC 9350, |
        |      | as defined in [RFC5305], Section 3.7 | Section   |
        |      | and Traffic Engineering Metric as    | 5.1       |
        |      | defined in [RFC3630], Section 2.5.5  |           |
        +------+--------------------------------------+-----------+

                     Table 2: IGP Metric-Type Registry

18.2.  IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Registry

   IANA has created the "IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags"
   registry within the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters"
   registry group.  The registration policy is "Standards Action".  New
   registrations should be assigned in ascending bit order (see
   Section 6.4); the following single bit has been assigned as follows.

        +=====+=============================+====================+
        | Bit | Name                        | Reference          |
        +=====+=============================+====================+
        | 0   | Prefix Metric Flag (M-flag) | RFC 9350, Sections |
        |     |                             | 6.4 and 7.4        |
        +-----+-----------------------------+--------------------+

        Table 3: IGP Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Registry

18.3.  IS-IS IANA Considerations

18.3.1.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV Registry

   This document makes the following registration in the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs
   for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV" registry.

       +=======+=====================================+=============+
       | Value | Description                         | Reference   |
       +=======+=====================================+=============+
       | 26    | Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) | RFC 9350,   |
       |       |                                     | Section 5.1 |
       +-------+-------------------------------------+-------------+

          Table 4: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV
                                  Registry

18.3.2.  IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability
         Registry

   This document makes the following registration in the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs
   for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability" registry.

   +======+==================+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+===========+
   | Type | Description      | 27 | 135 | 235 | 236 | 237 | Reference |
   +======+==================+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+===========+
   | 6    | Flexible         | n  | y   | y   | y   | y   | RFC 9350, |
   |      | Algorithm Prefix |    |     |     |     |     | Section 8 |
   |      | Metric (FAPM)    |    |     |     |     |     |           |
   +------+------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+

     Table 5: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability
                                 Registry

18.3.3.  IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV
         Registry

   IANA has created the "IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm
   Definition Sub-TLV" registry within the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints"
   registry group.  The registration procedure is "Expert Review" (note
   that the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry group includes Expert Review
   guidance that applies to all registries thereunder).

   The sub-sub-TLVs defined in this document have been assigned as
   follows.

     +=======+========================================+=============+
     | Type  | Description                            | Reference   |
     +=======+========================================+=============+
     | 0     | Reserved                               | RFC 9350    |
     +-------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
     | 1     | Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group | RFC 9350,   |
     |       |                                        | Section 6.1 |
     +-------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
     | 2     | Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin   | RFC 9350,   |
     |       | Group                                  | Section 6.2 |
     +-------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
     | 3     | Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin   | RFC 9350,   |
     |       | Group                                  | Section 6.3 |
     +-------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
     | 4     | Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags    | RFC 9350,   |
     |       |                                        | Section 6.4 |
     +-------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
     | 5     | Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG        | RFC 9350,   |
     |       |                                        | Section 6.5 |
     +-------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
     | 6-255 | Unassigned                             |             |
     +-------+----------------------------------------+-------------+

            Table 6: IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm
                       Definition Sub-TLV Registry

18.4.  OSPF IANA Considerations

18.4.1.  OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry

   This document makes the following registration in the "OSPF Router
   Information (RI) TLVs" registry.

     +=======+=========================================+=============+
     | Value | Description                             | Reference   |
     +=======+=========================================+=============+
     | 16    | Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) TLV | RFC 9350,   |
     |       |                                         | Section 5.2 |
     +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+

            Table 7: OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry

18.4.2.  OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry

   This document makes the following registration in the "OSPFv2
   Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry.

      +=======+=========================================+===========+
      | Value | Description                             | Reference |
      +=======+=========================================+===========+
      | 3     | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) | RFC 9350, |
      |       |                                         | Section 9 |
      +-------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+

           Table 8: OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry

18.4.3.  OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs Registry

   This document makes the following registrations in the "OSPFv3
   Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.

    +=======+=========================================+==============+
    | Value | Description                             | Reference    |
    +=======+=========================================+==============+
    | 26    | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) | RFC 9350,    |
    |       |                                         | Section 9    |
    +-------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
    | 33    | OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric     | RFC 9350,    |
    |       |                                         | Section 10.2 |
    +-------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+

              Table 9: OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs Registry

18.4.4.  OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Bits Registry

   IANA has created the "OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Bits"
   registry under the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters"
   registry.  The registration procedure is "IETF Review".  Bits 1-7 are
   unassigned, and the initial value has been assigned as follows.

       +============+=======================+=====================+
       | Bit Number | Description           | Reference           |
       +============+=======================+=====================+
       | 0          | E bit - External Type | RFC 9350, Section 9 |
       +------------+-----------------------+---------------------+

        Table 10: OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Bits Registry

18.4.5.  Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types Registry

   This document makes the following registration in the "Opaque Link-
   State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" registry within the "Open
   Shortest Path First (OSPF) Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA)
   Option Types" registry group.

            +=======+==========================+==============+
            | Value | Opaque Type              | Reference    |
            +=======+==========================+==============+
            | 11    | OSPFv2 Extended Inter-   | RFC 9350,    |
            |       | Area ASBR (EIA-ASBR) LSA | Section 10.1 |
            +-------+--------------------------+--------------+

                 Table 11: Opaque Link-State Advertisements
                        (LSA) Option Types Registry

18.4.6.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLVs Registry

   IANA has created the "OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLVs" registry
   within the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry
   group.  The registration procedure is "IETF Review" or "IESG
   Approval".  The initial value has been assigned as follows.

             +=======+==========================+===========+
             | Value | Description              | Reference |
             +=======+==========================+===========+
             | 1     | Extended Inter-Area ASBR | RFC 9350  |
             +-------+--------------------------+-----------+

                Table 12: OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR
                              TLVs Registry

   The values 2-32767 are unassigned, the values 32768-33023 are
   reserved for Experimental Use, and the values 0 and 33024-65535 are
   reserved.

18.4.7.  OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR Sub-TLVs Registry

   IANA has created the "OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR Sub-TLVs"
   registry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters"
   registry.  The registration procedure is "IETF Review" or "IESG
   Approval".  The initial value has been assigned as follows.

        +=======+=====================================+===========+
        | Value | Description                         | Reference |
        +=======+=====================================+===========+
        | 1     | OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric | RFC 9350  |
        +-------+-------------------------------------+-----------+

        Table 13: OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR Sub-TLVs Registry

   The values 2-32767 are unassigned, the values 32768-33023 are
   reserved for Experimental Use, and the values 0 and 33024-65535 are
   reserved.

18.4.8.  OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLVs Registry

   IANA has created the "OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-
   TLVs" registry within the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
   Parameters" registry group.  The registration procedure is "IETF
   Review" or "IESG Approval".

   The "OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLVs" registry will
   define sub-TLVs at any level of nesting for the Flexible Algorithm
   TLV, and new values can be allocated via the registration procedure.

   This document registers the following sub-TLVs.

   +============+========================================+=============+
   | Bit Number | Description                            | Reference   |
   +============+========================================+=============+
   | 0          | Reserved                               | RFC 9350    |
   +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
   | 1          | Flexible Algorithm                     | RFC 9350,   |
   |            | Exclude Admin Group                    | Section 7.1 |
   +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
   | 2          | Flexible Algorithm                     | RFC 9350,   |
   |            | Include-Any Admin Group                | Section 7.2 |
   +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
   | 3          | Flexible Algorithm                     | RFC 9350,   |
   |            | Include-All Admin Group                | Section 7.3 |
   +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
   | 4          | Flexible Algorithm                     | RFC 9350,   |
   |            | Definition Flags                       | Section 7.4 |
   +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
   | 5          | Flexible Algorithm                     | RFC 9350,   |
   |            | Exclude SRLG                           | Section 7.5 |
   +------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+

     Table 14: OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLVs Registry

   The values 6-32767 are unassigned, and values 32768-33023 are for
   Experimental Use; these will not be registered with IANA.

   Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time.
   Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there
   MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA considerations that
   cover the range being assigned.

18.4.9.  Link Attribute Application Identifiers Registry

   This document registers the following bit in the "Link Attribute
   Application Identifiers" registry.

        +=====+============================+======================+
        | Bit | Description                | Reference            |
        +=====+============================+======================+
        | 3   | Flexible Algorithm (X-bit) | RFC 9350, Section 12 |
        +-----+----------------------------+----------------------+

         Table 15: Link Attribute Application Identifiers Registry

19.  References

19.1.  Normative References

   [ISO10589] ISO, "Information technology - Telecommunications and
              information exchange between systems - Intermediate System
              to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing information
              exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol
              for providing the connectionless-mode network service (ISO
              8473)", Second Edition, ISO/IEC 10589:2002, November 2002.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5250]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
              OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
              July 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.

   [RFC5307]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
              in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7770]  Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
              S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
              Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
              February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.

   [RFC7981]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
              for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8660]  Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8667]  Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
              Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
              Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9352]  Psenak, P., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
              and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing
              over the IPv6 Data Plane", RFC 9352, DOI 10.17487/RFC9352,
              February 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9352>.

19.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC3101]  Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
              RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3906]  Shen, N. and H. Smit, "Calculating Interior Gateway
              Protocol (IGP) Routes Over Traffic Engineering Tunnels",
              RFC 3906, DOI 10.17487/RFC3906, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3906>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5304]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

   [RFC5310]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
              and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

   [RFC6571]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Francois, P., Ed., Shand, M., Decraene,
              B., Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
              Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
              Networks", RFC 6571, DOI 10.17487/RFC6571, June 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6571>.

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8570]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
              D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
              Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.

   [RFC8986]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
              D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
              (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.

   [ROUTING-PLANES-USING-SR]
              Hegde, S. and A. Gulko, "Separating Routing Planes using
              Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00, 13 March 2017,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gulkohegde-
              routing-planes-using-sr-00>.

   [RTGWG-SEGMENT-ROUTING-TI-LFA]
              Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
              Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
              Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
              09, 23 December 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-
              segment-routing-ti-lfa-09>.

Acknowledgements

   This document, among other things, addresses the problem that
   [ROUTING-PLANES-USING-SR] was trying to solve.  All authors of that
   document agreed to join this document.

   Thanks to Eric Rosen, Tony Przygienda, William Britto A. J., Gunter
   Van de Velde, Dirk Goethals, Manju Sivaji, and Baalajee S. for their
   detailed review and excellent comments.

   Thanks to Cengiz Halit for his review and feedback during the initial
   phase of the solution definition.

   Thanks to Kenji Kumaki for his comments.

   Thanks to Acee Lindem for editorial comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Peter Psenak (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Apollo Business Center
   Mlynske nivy 43
   82109 Bratislava
   Slovakia
   Email: ppsenak@cisco.com


   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Embassy Business Park
   Bangalore 560093
   KA
   India
   Email: shraddha@juniper.net


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   Belgium
   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Ketan Talaulikar
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   India
   Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com


   Arkadiy Gulko
   Edward Jones
   Email: arkadiy.gulko@edwardjones.com