RFC 9356
Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF
RFC 9356: Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF 🎀
okay bestie, the title block is giving everything 💖 This is an IETF Request for Comments, RFC 9356, edited by K. Talaulikar (Ed.) and P. Psenak, both from Cisco Systems. It's a Standards Track document dated January 2023 (ISSN 2070-1721), and it updates RFC 9085. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes 🦋
Abstract 🦋
there are deployments where the Layer 3 (L3) interface OSPF runs on is actually a Layer 2 (L2) interface bundle 🍓 right now, existing OSPF advertisements only cover link attributes of that L3 interface. but if entities outside OSPF want to steer traffic across the individual physical links inside that bundle, they need attribute info for each bundle member 👀
this doc defines the OSPF protocol extensions that advertise link attributes of L2 bundle members. it also specifies how those OSPF extensions get advertised through Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS), which is why it updates RFC 9085 ✨
Status of This Memo 📜
this is an Internet Standards Track document 💅 it's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and represents the consensus of the IETF community. it got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). more info on Internet Standards is in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
for the current status, any errata, and how to give feedback, check https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9356 🌸
Copyright Notice ©️
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 🫶
this doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication. please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document. any Code Components pulled out of this doc must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License 📚
Table of Contents 🗂️
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. L2 Bundle Member Attributes
3. BGP-LS Advertisement
4. IANA Considerations
5. Operational Considerations
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction ✨
okay so there are deployments where the L3 interface an OSPF adjacency is established on is an L2 interface bundle, like a Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX] 🧚 that cuts down on the number of adjacencies OSPF has to maintain when there are parallel links between neighbors. but entities outside OSPF, like Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655], may want to control traffic flows on individual L2 member links of that bundle (e.g., LAG). to do that, they need link attribute info for each bundle member. the protocol extensions in this doc are how that info gets advertised 💖
this doc defines sub-TLVs that advertise link attribute info for each L2 bundle member making up the L3 interface OSPF operates on. IS-IS got similar capabilities in [RFC8668] 🌈
[RFC8665] and [RFC8666] introduced the Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) link attribute for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively, and it works as an instruction to forward traffic over a specific link [RFC8402] 🦋 this doc lets the Adj-SIDs get advertised using that same Adj-SID sub-TLV at the granularity of each L2 bundle member link, so traffic can be steered over that exact member link. main character energy 👑
note that the advertisements at the L2 bundle member link level in this doc are meant for entities outside OSPF, and they do not alter or change OSPF route computation 💅 these things are intentionally NOT defined here and are out of scope:
- What link attributes will be advertised. That's determined by the needs of the external entities.
- A minimum or default set of link attributes.
- How these attributes are configured.
- How the advertisements are used.
- What impact the use of these advertisements may have on traffic flow in the network.
- How the advertisements are passed to external entities.
BGP Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] got extended to advertise L2 bundle members and their attributes in [RFC9085], but that only covered IS-IS 😭 this doc updates [RFC9085] by specifying the advertisement from OSPF (refer to Section 3) 🎀
1.1. Requirements Language
ok this part is important, so listen up 🙈 the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" only get the BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] treatment when, and only when, they show up in all capitals, exactly like that. anywhere else they're just regular English words 💜
2. L2 Bundle Member Attributes 🎀
so there's a brand new L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV that advertises L2 bundle member attributes in both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 ✨ for OSPFv2, it's an optional sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV, which describes link attributes through the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA (Link State Advertisement) [RFC7684]. for OSPFv3, it's an optional sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV in the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] 🧚
when the OSPF adjacency is tied to an L2 bundle interface, this sub-TLV advertises the underlying L2 bundle member links along with their own link attributes 🍓 including this info means the identified link is a member of the L2 bundle tied to an OSPF L3 link and the member link is operationally up. so advertisements of member links MUST NOT be done when the member link goes operationally down or stops being a member of the identified L2 bundle. that's a hard rule, bestie 🚫
the advertisement of this sub-TLV may be asymmetric for an OSPF link, depending on the underlying L2 connectivity. in other words, it could be advertised by the router on only one end 🦋
the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| L2 Bundle Member Descriptor |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Member Link Attribute sub-TLVs (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Figure 1: L2 Bundle Member Attributes Sub-TLV Format
here's what the fields mean 🔥
Type: 24 for OSPFv2 and 29 for OSPFv3.Length: The total length (in octets) of the value portion of the TLV, including nested sub-TLVs.L2 Bundle Member Descriptor: A 4-octet link-local identifier for the member link. This identifier is described as "link local identifier" in [RFC4202] and used as "Local Interface ID" in [RFC8510] 🌸
link attributes for L2 bundle member links get advertised as sub-TLVs of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV 💖
in the case of OSPFv2, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares sub-TLV space with the Extended Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the Extended Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the member link ✨ Table 1 lists the sub-TLVs and their applicability for L2 bundle member links. any sub-TLVs that aren't applicable MUST NOT be used as sub-TLVs for the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV 🙅♀️ specifications that introduce new sub-TLVs of the Extended Link TLV MUST indicate their applicability to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. typically, attributes with L3 semantics wouldn't apply, but L2 attributes would 🫶 and an implementation MUST ignore any sub-TLVs it receives that aren't applicable in the context of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. no exceptions, periodt 💅
okay so the big tables are up next, and they're the heart of the whole thing 💅 Table 1 is the OSPFv2 list, and each row says whether that sub-TLV can hang out inside an L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV 🫶
+=======+======================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Applicability |
+=======+======================================+===============+
| 1 | SID/Label | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | Adj-SID | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | LAN Adj-SID/Label | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | Network-to-Router Metric | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 5 | RTM Capability | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 6 | OSPFv2 Link MSD | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 7 | Graceful-Link-Shutdown | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 8 | Remote IPv4 Address | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 9 | Local/Remote Interface ID | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 10 | Application-Specific Link Attributes | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 11 | Shared Risk Link Group | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 12 | Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 13 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 14 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 15 | Unidirectional Link Loss | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 16 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 17 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 18 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 19 | Administrative Group | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 20 | Extended Administrative Group | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 22 | TE Metric | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 23 | Maximum Link Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 24 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | N |
+-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Applicability of OSPFv2 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for
L2 Bundle MembersHere's how to read the codes in Table 1:
Y: This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. 💜N: This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. 🚫
For OSPFv3, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares its sub-TLV space with the Router-Link TLV, so the Router-Link sub-TLVs MAY be used to describe the member link's attributes 🦋 Table 2 lists which Router-Link sub-TLVs are applicable to L2 bundle member links. Any sub-TLV that doesn't qualify MUST NOT be used inside the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. And if a spec introduces a new sub-TLV for the Router-Link TLV, it MUST say how it applies to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. Bestie, that's a must-do 📝 Also, an implementation MUST ignore any received sub-TLVs that don't apply in the context of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. Ignore them, no drama 🙅♀️
+=======+=========================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Applicability |
+=======+=========================================+===============+
| 1 | IPv6-Forwarding-Address | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | IPv4-Forwarding-Address | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Route-Tag | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | Prefix SID | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 5 | Adj-SID | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 6 | LAN Adj-SID | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 7 | SID/Label | N |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 8 | Graceful-Link-Shutdown | N |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 9 | OSPFv3 Link MSD | N |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 11 | Application-Specific Link Attributes | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 12 | Shared Risk Link Group | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 13 | Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 14 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 15 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 16 | Unidirectional Link Loss | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 17 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 18 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 19 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 20 | Administrative Group | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 21 | Extended Administrative Group | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 22 | TE Metric | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 23 | Maximum Link Bandwidth | Y |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 24 | Local Interface IPv6 Address | N |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 25 | Remote Interface IPv6 Address | N |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 26 | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 27 | Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 28 | Prefix Source Router Address | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 29 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | N |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 33 | OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric | X |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: Applicability of OSPFv3 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for L2
Bundle MembersAnd the codes for Table 2, which has one extra one for "not a Router-Link sub-TLV at all" 🌸
Y: This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. 💜N: This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. 🚫X: This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. 🙅♀️
3. BGP-LS Advertisement
Okay, so the BGP-LS extensions for advertising L2 bundle members and their attributes were already specified in [RFC9085] 🎀 With the OSPF L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV from this document, the L2 bundle member info can now be advertised from OSPF into BGP-LS, following the same approach that Section 2.2.3 of [RFC9085] describes for IS-IS. It's giving consistency across protocols 💅✨
4. IANA Considerations ✨
IANA has allocated a code point in the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" subregistry, which lives under the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry 📋
Value: 24
Designation: L2 Bundle Member AttributesIANA has also allocated a code point in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" subregistry, under the "Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry 🧚
Value: 29
Description: L2 Bundle Member AttributesIANA also added a column called "L2BM" to the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry 🍓 That column shows applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV, and the starting values (Y/N) are the ones in Table 1. IANA also added this explanatory note to the registry:
| The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
| Attributes Member sub-TLV. The options for the "L2BM" column are:
|
| Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
| sub-TLV.
|
| N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
| Attributes sub-TLV.IANA did the same thing for the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry 🌈 It added an "L2BM" column for the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV, with starting values (Y/N/X) from Table 2, plus this explanatory note:
| The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
| Attributes Member sub-TLV. The options for the "L2BM" column are:
|
| Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
| sub-TLV.
|
| N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
| Attributes sub-TLV.
|
| X - This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT
| appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.One more thing: future allocations in these two registries are required to indicate how the new sub-TLV applies to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV 🫶 And IANA has listed this document as a reference for both registries 🦋
5. Operational Considerations 🎀
Okay bestie, time for the ops side 💅. Implementations MUST NOT turn on advertising of L2 bundle member links and their attributes in OSPF LSAs by default, and they MUST give you a configuration option to enable it on specific links. Default off, you choose what gets shared ✨
[RFC9129] is the base YANG data model for OSPF 🌸 The required configuration and operational elements for this feature are expected to be added as augmentations to that base model. So the YANG side gets extended, not replaced 🦋
6. Security Considerations 🔥
Okay this section is serious, so let's get into it 😭 OSPF has been advertising link attribute information, including link identifiers, for many years. The advertisements in this document are the same as the existing ones defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203], [RFC5329], [RFC7471], [RFC8665], and [RFC8666]. The only difference is that they're tied to L2 links that are part of a bundle interface where OSPF runs 🧚
So the security considerations from those documents still apply, and this document doesn't introduce any new security issues 🫶
Still, if the protocol runs in an environment where someone can get unauthorized access to the physical links that OSPF packets travel over, attacks are possible 💀 That's not new, but it's very real. The use of authentication as defined in [RFC5709], [RFC7474], [RFC4552], and [RFC7166] is recommended to prevent such attacks. Lock your links, bestie 🔐
7. References 📚
The reference list is LONG, so here it is in full, exactly as written ✨
7.1. Normative References
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks--Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
[RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.7.2. Informative References
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8510] Psenak, P., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Henderickx, W., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling (LLS)
Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement",
RFC 8510, DOI 10.17487/RFC8510, January 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8510>.
[RFC8668] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.
[RFC9129] Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,
"YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol", RFC 9129,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9129, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9129>.Acknowledgements 💜
This document builds on similar work done for IS-IS 🌈 The authors want to give a big shoutout to the authors of [RFC8668] for that 🫶
The authors also want to thank Anoop Ghanwani, Paul Kyzivat, Dan Romascanu, and Russ Mundy for their review and feedback on this document 🍓 Acee Lindem gets a huge thank-you for his detailed shepherd review ⭐ And John Scudder deserves credit for his AD review and the discussion about how TLVs/sub-TLVs apply to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV 👑
Authors' Addresses 🦋
Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
Cisco Systems
India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Apollo Business Center
Mlynske nivy 43
821 09 Bratislava
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9356 2023-01
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms