path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9351.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                K. Talaulikar, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9351                                     P. Psenak
Category: Standards Track                                  Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 S. Zandi
                                                                G. Dawra
                                                                LinkedIn
                                                           February 2023


 Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Flexible
                        Algorithm Advertisement

Abstract

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

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

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/rfc9351.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Requirements Language
   2.  Overview of BGP-LS Extensions for Flexible Algorithm
   3.  Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV
     3.1.  Flexible Algorithm Exclude-Any Affinity Sub-TLV
     3.2.  Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Affinity Sub-TLV
     3.3.  Flexible Algorithm Include-All Affinity Sub-TLV
     3.4.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV
     3.5.  Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV
     3.6.  Flexible Algorithm Unsupported Sub-TLV
   4.  Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV
   5.  IANA Considerations
   6.  Manageability Considerations
   7.  Security Considerations
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

   The operations of the IGP Flexible Algorithm solution are described
   in detail in [RFC9350].

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

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

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

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

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

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Overview of BGP-LS Extensions for Flexible Algorithm

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

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

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

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

3.  Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

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

      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 Algo   |   Metric-Type |   Calc-Type   |    Priority   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                sub-TLVs       ...                            //
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 1: Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV

   where:
      Type:  1039

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

      Flexible Algorithm (Flex Algo):  Single octet value carrying the
         Flexible Algorithm number between 128 and 255 inclusive, as
         defined in [RFC9350].

      Metric-Type:  Single octet value carrying the metric type, as
         defined in [RFC9350].

      Calc-Type:  Single octet value carrying the calculation type, as
         defined in [RFC9350].

      Priority:  Single octet value carrying the priority of the FAD
         advertisement, as defined in [RFC9350].

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

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

   *  in the case of IS-IS, from the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Definition
      sub-TLV in [RFC9350]

   *  in the case of OSPFv2/OSPFv3, from the OSPF Flexible Algorithm
      Definition TLV in [RFC9350]

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

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

3.1.  Flexible Algorithm Exclude-Any Affinity Sub-TLV

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

   The sub-TLV has the following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Type            |              Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Exclude-Any EAG (variable)                       //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

   where:
      Type:  1040

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

      Exclude-Any EAG:  The EAG value, as defined in [RFC9350].

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

3.2.  Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Affinity Sub-TLV

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

   The sub-TLV has the following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Type            |              Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Include-Any EAG (variable)                       //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

   where:
      Type:  1041

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

      Include-Any EAG:  The EAG value, as defined in [RFC9350].

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

3.3.  Flexible Algorithm Include-All Affinity Sub-TLV

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

   The sub-TLV has the following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Type            |              Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Include-All EAG (variable)                       //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

   where:
      Type:  1042

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

      Include-All EAG:  The EAG value, as defined in [RFC9350].

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

3.4.  Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV

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

   The sub-TLV has the following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Type            |              Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Flags (variable)                       //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 5: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV

   where:
      Type:  1043

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

      Flags:  The bitmask used to represent the flags for the FAD, as
         defined in [RFC9350].

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

3.5.  Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV

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

   The sub-TLV has the following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Type            |              Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Shared Risk Link Group Values (variable)           //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 6: Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV

   where:
      Type:  1045

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

      Shared Risk Link Group Values:  One or more SRLG values, each with
         a size of 4 octets, as defined in [RFC9350].

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

3.6.  Flexible Algorithm Unsupported Sub-TLV

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

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

   The sub-TLV has the following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Type            |              Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Protocol-ID  | sub-TLV types (variable) ...                 //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 7: Flexible Algorithm Unsupported Sub-TLV

   where:
      Type:  1046

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

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

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

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

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

4.  Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV

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

    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 Algo   |     Flags     |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Metric                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 8: Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV

   where:
      Type:  1044

      Length:  8 octets

      Flexible Algorithm (Flex Algo):  Single octet value carrying the
         Flexible Algorithm number between 128 and 255 inclusive, as
         defined in [RFC9350].

      Flags:  Single octet value and only applicable for OSPF, as
         defined in [RFC9350].  The value MUST be set to 0 for IS-IS.

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

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

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

   *  in the case of IS-IS, from the IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix
      Metric sub-TLV in [RFC9350]

   *  in the case of OSPFv2/OSPFv3, from the OSPF Flexible Algorithm
      Prefix Metric sub-TLV in [RFC9350]

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

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has allocated code points in the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link
   Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters> based on the
   table below for the TLVs/sub-TLVs introduced by this document.

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

                 Table 1: Flexible Algorithm Code Points

6.  Manageability Considerations

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

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

7.  Security Considerations

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

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

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

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

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

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

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

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

8.2.  Informative References

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

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

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

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Authors' Addresses

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


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


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


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