<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-12" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IP Flex-Algorithm">IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm)
    In IP Networks</title>

    <author fullname="William Britto" initials="W." surname="Britto">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey</street>

          <city>Bangalore</city>

          <region>Karnataka</region>

          <code>560103</code>

          <country>India</country>
        </postal>

        <email>bwilliam@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shraddha Hegde" initials="S." surname="Hegde">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey</street>

          <city>Bangalore</city>

          <region>Karnataka</region>

          <code>560103</code>

          <country>India</country>
        </postal>

        <email>shraddha@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Parag Kaneriya " initials="P." surname="Kaneriya">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey</street>

          <city>Bangalore</city>

          <region>Karnataka</region>

          <code>560103</code>

          <country>India</country>
        </postal>

        <email>pkaneria@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Rejesh Shetty" initials="R." surname="Shetty">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey</street>

          <city>Bangalore</city>

          <region>Karnataka</region>

          <code>560103</code>

          <country>India</country>
        </postal>

        <email>mrajesh@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ron Bonica" initials="R." surname="Bonica">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2251 Corporate Park Drive</street>

          <city>Herndon</city>

          <code>20171</code>

          <region>Virginia</region>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>rbonica@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Peter Psenak" initials="P." surname="Psenak">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Apollo Business Center</street>

          <street>Mlynske nivy 43</street>

          <city>Bratislava</city>

          <code>82109</code>

          <country>Slovakia</country>
        </postal>

        <email>ppsenak@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date/>

    <area>Routing Area</area>

    <workgroup>LSR Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>ISIS</keyword>

    <keyword>Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>
    
      <t>This document extends IGP Flex-Algorithm, so that it can be used with
      regular IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding.</t>
      
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
    
    <t>An IGP Flexible Algorithm (Flex-Algorithm) allows IGPs to compute
      constraint-based paths. The base IGP Flex-Algorithm specification
      describes how it is used with Segment Routing (SR) data planes - SR MPLS and 
      SRv6.</t>
    
      <t>An IGP Flex-Algorithm as specified in <xref
      target="RFC9350"/> computes a constraint-based path to:
      <list style="symbols">
          <t>All Flex-Algorithm specific Prefix Segment Identifiers (SIDs)
          <xref target="RFC8402"/>.</t>

          <t>All Flex-Algorithm specific SRv6 Locators <xref
          target="RFC8986"/>.</t>
        </list>Therefore, Flex-Algorithm cannot be deployed in the absence of
      SR or SRv6.</t>

      <t>This document extends Flex-Algorithm, allowing it to compute paths
      to IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes.</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="ReqLang" title="Requirements Language">
      <t>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 <xref
      target="RFC2119">BCP 14</xref> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only
      when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Use Case Example">
       
      <t> The System Architecture for the 5G System <xref target="TS.23.501-3GPP"/>
	  describes the N3 interface between gNodeB and UPF (User Plane Function).</t>
	  
	  <t>Mobile networks are becoming more and more IP centric. Each end-user session from 
      a gNodeB can be destined to a specific UPFs (User Plane Function) based on the 
      session requirements. For example, some sessions require high bandwidth, others 
      need to be routed along the lowest latency path. Each UPF is assigned a unique 
      IP address. As a result, traffic for different sessions is destined to a different 
      destination IP address.</t>
      
      <t>The IP address allocated to the UPF can be associated with an algorithm. The mobile 
      user traffic is then forwarded along the path based on the algorithm-specific 
      metric and constraints. As a result, traffic can be sent over a path that is optimized
      for minimal latency or highest bandwidth. This mechanism is used to achieve SLA 
      (Service Level Agreement) appropriate for a user session.</t> 
    
    </section>

    <section title="Advertising Flex-Algorithm Definitions (FAD)">
      <t>To guarantee loop-free forwarding, all routers that participate in a
      Flex-Algorithm MUST agree on the Flex-Algorithm Definition (FAD).</t>

      <t>Selected nodes within the IGP domain MUST advertise FADs as described
      in Sections 5, 6, and 7 of <xref target="RFC9350"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="PARTICIPATION"
             title="Advertising IP Flex-Algorithm Participation">
      <t>A node may use various algorithms when calculating paths to nodes and
      prefixes. Algorithm values are defined in the <xref
      target="IANA-ALG">IGP Algorithm Type Registry </xref>.</t>

      <t>A node MUST participate in a Flex-Algorithm to be:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Able to compute path for such Flex-Algorithm</t>

          <t>Part of the topology for such Flex-Algorithm</t>
        </list></t>


      <t>Flex-Algorithm participation MUST be advertised for each
      Flex-Algorithm data-plane independently, as specified in 
      <xref target="RFC9350"/>. Using Flex-Algorithm for
      regular IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes represents an independent Flex-Algorithm
      data-plane, and as such, the Flex-Algorithm participation for the IP Flex-Algorithm
      data-plane MUST be signalled independently of any other Flex-Algorithm 
      data-plane (e.g., SR).</t>
      
      <t>All routers in an IGP domain participate in default algorithm 0.
	  Advertisement of participation in IP Flex-Algorithm does not impact 
      the router participation in default algorithm 0.
	  </t>
      
      <t>Advertisement of participation in IP Flex-Algorithm does not impact 
      the router participation signaled for other data-planes. For example,
	  it is possible that a router participates in a particular flex-algo
	  for the IP data-plane but does not participate in the 
	  same flex-algo for the SR data-plane.</t>

      <t>The following sections describe how the IP Flex-Algorithm participation
      is advertised in IGP protocols.</t>

      <section anchor="ISIS-ALG_TLV" title="The IS-IS IP Algorithm Sub-TLV">
        <t>The IS-IS <xref target="ISO10589"/> IP Algorithm Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the 
        IS-IS Router Capability TLV <xref target="RFC7981"/> and has the following format:
        <figure align="center" anchor="ISISAlg"
            title="IS-IS IP Algorithm Sub-TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[     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    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Algorithm 1   |  Algorithm 2  | Algorithm ... |  Algorithm n  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
          </figure> <list style="symbols">
            <t>Type: IP Algorithm Sub-TLV (Value 29)</t>

            <t>Length: Variable</t>

            <t>Algorithm (1 octet): Value from 128 to 255.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The IP Algorithm Sub-TLV MUST be propagated throughout the level
        and MUST NOT be advertised across level boundaries. Therefore, the S
        bit in the Router Capability TLV, in which the IP Algorithm Sub-TLV is
        advertised, MUST NOT be set.</t>

        <t>The IP Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MUST NOT be advertised
        more than once at a given level. A router receiving multiple IP
        Algorithm sub-TLVs from the same originator MUST select the first
        advertisement in the lowest-numbered LSP and subsequent instances of
        the IP Algorithm Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.</t>
        
        <t>The use of the IP Algorithm Sub-TLV to advertise support for algorithms
        outside the Flex-Algorithm range (128-255) is outside the
        scope of this document.</t>

        <t>The IP Flex-Algorithm participation advertised in the IS-IS IP Algorithm
        Sub-TLV is topology independent. When a router advertises
        participation in the IS-IS IP Algorithm Sub-TLV, the participation applies
        to all topologies in which the advertising node participates.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="OSPF-ALG_TLV" title="The OSPF IP Algorithm TLV">
        <t>The OSPF <xref target="RFC2328"/> IP Algorithm TLV is a top-level TLV of the 
        <xref target="RFC7770"> Router Information Opaque LSA</xref> and has the
        following format: <figure align="center" anchor="OSPFAlg"
            title="OSPF IP Algorithm TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Algorithm 1 | Algorithm...  |   Algorithm n |               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   ]]></artwork>
          </figure> <list style="symbols">
            <t>Type: IP Algorithm TLV (Value TBD1 by IANA)</t>

            <t>Length: Variable</t>

            <t>Algorithm (1 octet): Value from 128 to 255.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The IP Algorithm TLV is optional. It MUST only be advertised once
        in the Router Information LSA.</t>

        <t>When multiple IP Algorithm TLVs are received from a given router,
        the receiver MUST use the first occurrence of the TLV in the Router
        Information LSA. If the IP Algorithm TLV appears in multiple Router Information 
        LSAs that have different flooding scopes, the IP Algorithm TLV in the Router 
        Information LSA with the area-scoped flooding scope MUST be used. If the 
        IP Algorithm TLV appears in multiple Router Information LSAs that have the same
        flooding scope, the IP Algorithm TLV in the Router Information LSA with the 
        numerically smallest Instance ID (Opaque ID for OSPFv2 or Link State ID for OSPFv3) 
        MUST be used and subsequent instances of the IP Algorithm TLV MUST be ignored.</t>

        <t>The Router Information LSA can be advertised at any of the defined flooding
        scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)). For the purpose of IP
        Algorithm TLV advertisement, area or Autonomous System scoped flooding is REQUIRED.
        The AS flooding scope SHOULD NOT be used unless local configuration policy
        on the originating router indicates domain-wide flooding.</t>

        <t>The IP Flex-Algorithm participation advertised in the OSPF IP Algorithm
        TLV is topology independent. When a router advertises participation in
        OSPF IP Algorithm TLV, the participation applies to all topologies in
        which the advertising node participates.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ASSOCIATE"
             title="Advertising IP Flex-Algorithm Reachability">
      <t>To be able to associate the prefix with the Flex-Algorithm, the
      existing prefix reachability advertisements cannot be used, because
      they advertise the prefix reachability in default algorithm 0. Instead,
      new IP Flex-Algorithm reachability advertisements are defined in IS-IS
      and OSPF.</t>

      <t>The M-flag in the FAD is not applicable to IP Algorithm Prefixes. Any IP
      Algorithm Prefix advertisement includes the Algorithm and Metric fields.
      When an IP Algorithm Prefix is advertised between areas or domains, the
      metric field in the IP Algorithm Prefix advertisement MUST be used
      irrespective of the M-flag in the FAD advertisement.</t>     
    
      <section anchor="ISIS-IPV4_PFX_TLV"
               title="The IS-IS IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV">
        <t>The IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability top-level TLV is defined for advertising IPv4 Flex-Algorithm
        Prefix Reachability in IS-IS.</t>

        <t>This new TLV shares the sub-TLV space defined for TLVs Advertising Prefix 
        Reachability.</t>

        <t>The IS-IS IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV has the following
        format: <figure anchor="ISISipv4" title="IS-IS IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[    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    |  Rsvd |    MTID               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ]]></artwork>
          </figure> <list style="symbols">
            <t>Type: IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (Value 126).</t>

            <t>Length: Variable based on number of prefix entries encoded</t>

            <t>Rsvd (4 bits): Reserved for future use. They MUST be set to
            zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

            <t>MTID (12 bits): Multitopology Identifier as defined in
            [RFC5120]. Note that the value 0 is legal.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>Followed by one or more prefix entries of the form: 
        <figure anchor="ISISpfxentry" title="IS-IS IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Metric                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Flags       |  Algorithm    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Pfx Length   |  Prefix (variable)...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Sub-tlv-len  |         Sub-TLVs (variable) . . .             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ]]></artwork>
          </figure> <list style="symbols">
            <t>Metric (4 octets): Metric information as defined in <xref target="RFC5305"/>.</t>

            <t>Flags (1 octet): <figure>
                <artwork><![CDATA[ 
              0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             |D|  Reserved   |
             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
              </figure> <list style="hanging">
                <t>D-flag: When the Prefix is leaked from level-2 to level-1,
                the D bit MUST be set. Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
                Prefixes with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
                level-2. This is to prevent looping.</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>Algorithm (1 octet): Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.</t>

            <t>Prefix Len (1 octet): Prefix length measured in bits.</t>

            <t>Prefix (variable length): Prefix mapped to Flex-Algorithm.</t>

            <t>Optional Sub-TLV-length (1 octet): Number of octets used by
            sub-TLVs</t>

            <t>Optional sub-TLVs (variable length).</t>
          </list></t>

        <t> If a router receives multiple IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability
        advertisements for the same prefix from the same originator, it
        MUST select the first advertisement in
        the lowest-numbered LSP and ignore any subsequent IPv4 Algorithm
        Prefix Reachability advertisements for the same prefix.</t>

        <t>If a router receives multiple IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability
        advertisements for the same prefix, from different originators, 
        where all of them do not advertise the same algorithm, it MUST ignore all of them and
        MUST NOT install any forwarding entries based on these
        advertisements.  This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.</t>

        <t>In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both a IPv4
        Prefix Reachability TLV (<xref target="RFC5305"/>, <xref target="RFC5120"/>)  
        and an IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV, the IPv4 Prefix Reachability 
        advertisement MUST be preferred when installing entries in the forwarding plane.</t>
              
        
      </section>

      <section anchor="ISIS-IPV6_PFX_TLV"
               title="The IS-IS IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV">
        <t>The IS-IS IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV is identical to the
        IS-IS IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV, except that it has a
        distinct type. The type is 127.</t>
   
        <t> If a router receives multiple IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability
        advertisements for the same prefix from the same originator, it
        MUST select the first advertisement in
        the lowest-numbered LSP and ignore any subsequent IPv6 Algorithm
        Prefix Reachability advertisements for the same prefix.</t>

        <t>If a router receives multiple IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability
        advertisements for the same prefix, from different originators, 
        where all of them do not advertise the same algorithm, it MUST ignore all of them and
        MUST NOT install any forwarding entries based on these
       advertisements.  This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.</t>

        <t>In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both an IPv6
        Prefix Reachability TLV (<xref target="RFC5308"/>, <xref target="RFC5120"/>)
        and an IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV, the IPv6 Prefix Reachability 
        advertisement MUST be preferred when installing entries in the forwarding plane.</t>
        
        <t>In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both an IS-IS SRv6 
        Locator TLV  <xref target="RFC9352"/> and in IS-IS IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV, the receiver
        MUST ignore both of them and MUST NOT install any forwarding entries based 
        on these advertisements. This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.</t>
        
      </section>

      <section anchor="OSPF-IPV4_PFX_TLV"
               title="The OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV">
        <t>A new Sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV is defined for
        advertising IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability in OSPFv2, the OSPFv2 IP
        Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV.</t>

        <t>The OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV has the
        following format:</t>

        <t><figure anchor="OSPFvpfx2" title="OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[

 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            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |       MT-ID   |  Algorithm    |     Flags     |     Reserved  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                          Metric                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>Type (2 octets) : The value is TBD2.</t>

            <t>Length (2 octet): 8</t>

            <t>MT-ID (1 octet): Multi-Topology ID as defined in <xref
            target="RFC4915"/></t>

            <t>Algorithm (1 octet): Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.</t>

            <t>Flags: (1 octet):  The following flags are defined:
            <figure>
                align="center">
                <artwork>

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |E|   Reserved    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      where:</artwork>
              </figure></t>
              
            <t><list>
 
               <t>bit E: Same as bit E defined in section A.4.5 of <xref target="RFC2328"/>.</t>
        
               <t>The remaining bits, are reserved for future use. They MUST be
               set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
               
            </list></t>

            <t>Reserved: (1 octets). SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and
            MUST be ignored on reception.</t>

            <t>Metric (4 octets): The algorithm-specific metric value. The metric 
            value of 0XFFFFFFFF MUST be considered as unreachable.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>An OSPFv2 router receiving multiple OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix
        Reachability Sub-TLVs in the same OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV, MUST
        select the first advertisement of this Sub-TLV and MUST ignore all
        remaining occurences of this Sub-TLV in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix
        TLV.</t>

        <t>An OSPFv2 router receiving multiple OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix
        Reachability TLVs for the same prefix, from different originators,
        where all of them do not advertise the same algorithm, MUST ignore all of them and MUST NOT
        install any forwarding entries based on these advertisements.
        This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.</t>

        <t>In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in any of the
        LSAs advertising the prefix reachability for algorithm 0 and in an OSPFv2
        IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV, only the prefix reachability
        advertisement for algorithm 0 MUST be used and all occurences of the
        OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.</t>
        
        <t>When computing the IP Algorithm Prefix reachability in OSPFv2, only information 
        present in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV MUST be used. There will not be any 
        information advertised for the IP Algorithm Prefix in any of the OSPFv2 
        LSAs that advertise prefix reachability for algorithm 0. For the IP Algorithm Prefix 
        the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV is used to advertise the prefix reachability, unlike
        for algorithm 0 prefixes, where the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV is only used to advertise
        additional attributes, but not the reachability itself.</t>
        
        <section anchor="OSPFV2_FA-SUBTLV"
               title="The OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV">
          
         <t>A new Sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV is defined for
        advertising IP Forwarding Address, the OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV.</t>

        <t>The OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV has the
        following format:</t>   
        
        <t><figure anchor="OSPFV2_FA" title="OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[

 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            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                     Forwarding Address                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>  
          
          
          <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>Type (2 octets) : The value is TBD4.</t>

            <t>Length (2 octet): 4</t>

            <t>Forwarding Address: Same as defined in section A.4.5 of 
            <xref target="RFC2328"/>.</t>
            
            </list></t>
            
            <t>The OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV MUST NOT be used 
            for computing algorithm 0 prefix reachability and MUST be ignored for 
            algorithm 0 prefixes.</t> 
            
            <t>The OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV is optional. If it is not present, 
            the forwarding address for computing the IP Algorithm Prefix reachability 
            is assumed to be equal to 0.0.0.0.</t>
            
            <t>The OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV is only applicable to Autonomous System
             (AS) External and Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) External route types. If the 
             OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV is advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended 
             Prefix TLV that has the Route Type field set to any other type, the OSPFv2 
             IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.</t> 
               
        </section>       
        
        
      </section>

      <section anchor="OSPFV3_ALGTLV"
               title="The OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV">
        <t>The OSPFv3 <xref target="RFC5340"/> IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV 
        is defined for advertisement of the IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability in OSPFv3.</t>

        <t>The OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of
        the following OSPFv3 TLVs defined in <xref target="RFC8362"/>: <list
            style="symbols">
            <t>Intra-Area-Prefix TLV</t>

            <t>Inter-Area-Prefix TLV</t>

            <t>External-Prefix TLV</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The format of OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV is
        shown below:</t>

        <t><figure anchor="OSPFv3pfx" title="OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[  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            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Algorithm    |                 Reserved                      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                          Metric                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>Where:<list>
            <t>Type (2 octets): The value is TBD3.</t>

            <t>Length (2 octets): 8.</t>

            <t>Algorithm (1 octet): Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.</t>
            
            <t>Reserved: (3 octets). SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and
            MUST be ignored on reception.</t>

            <t>Metric (4 octets): The algorithm-specific metric value. The metric
            value of 0XFFFFFFFF MUST be considered as unreachable.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>When the OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV is
        present, the NU-bit in the PrefixOptions field of the parent TLV MUST be set.
        This is needed to prevent the OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability advertisement
        from contributing to the base algorithm reachability. If the NU-bit in the 
        PrefixOptions field of the parent TLV is not set, the  OSPFv3 IP Algorithm 
        Prefix Sub-TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.</t>
        
        <t>The metric value in the parent TLV is RECOMMENDED to be set to LSInfinity
        <xref target="RFC2328"/>. This recommendation is provided as a network troubleshooting
        convenience; if it is not followed the protocol will still function correctly.</t>
        
        <t>An OSPFv3 router receiving multiple OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix
        Reachability Sub-TLVs in the same parent TLV, MUST select the first
        advertisement of this Sub-TLV and MUST ignore all remaining occurences
        of this Sub-TLV in the parent TLV.</t>

        <t>An OSPFv3 router receiving multiple OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix
        Reachability TLVs for the same prefix, from different originators,
        where all of them do not advertise the same algorithm, MUST ignore all of them and MUST NOT
        install any forwarding entries based on these advertisements.
        This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.</t>
       
        <t>In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in any of the
        LSAs advertising the prefix reachability for algorithm 0 and in an OSPFv3
        OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV, only the prefix reachability
        advertisement for algorithm 0 MUST be used and all occurences of the
        OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.</t>
        
        <t>In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both an OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLV 
        and in an OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV, the receiver
        MUST ignore both of them and MUST NOT install any forwarding entries based 
        on these advertisements. This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.</t>
        
        
      </section>

      <section anchor="IPFAAL"
               title="The OSPF IP Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV">
        <t><xref target="RFC9350"/> defines
        the OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV (FAAM) that is used by
        an OSPFv2 or an OSPFv3 ABR to advertise a Flex-Algorithm specific metric
        associated with the corresponding ASBR LSA.</t>

        <t>As described in <xref target="RFC9350"/> each data-plane signals 
        its participation independently. IP Flex-Algorithm participation is
        signaled independent of Segment Routing (SR) Flex-Algorithm
        participation. As a result, the calculated topologies for SR and IP
        Flex-Algorithm could be different. Such difference prevents the usage
        of FAAM for the purpose of the IP Flex-Algorithm.</t>

        <t>The OSPF IP Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric (IPFAAM) Sub-TLV is
        defined for the advertisement of the IP Flex-Algorithm specific metric
        associated with an ASBR by the ABR.</t>

        <t>The IPFAAM Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the: <list style="hanging">
            <t>- OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR TLV as defined in <xref
            target="RFC9350"/></t>

            <t>- OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router TLV defined in <xref
            target="RFC8362"/></t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLV has the following format:</t>
         <t><figure anchor="OSPFfaal" title="OSPF IP Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV">
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 
 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            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Algorithm   |                   Reserved                    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                            Metric                             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where:
    ]]></artwork>
          </figure> <list style="hanging">
            <t>Type (2 octets): 2 (allocated by IANA) for OSPFv2, TBD5 for OSPFv3.</t>

            <t>Length (2 octets): 8.</t>

            <t>Algorithm (1 octet): Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.</t>

            <t>Reserved: (3 octets). SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and
            MUST be ignored on reception.</t>

            <t>Metric (4 octets): The algorithm-specific metric value.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The usage of the IPFAAM Sub-TLV is similar to the usage of the FAAM
        Sub-TLV defined in <xref target="RFC9350"/>, but it is
        used to advertise IP Flex-Algorithm metric.</t>

        <t>An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the
        ASBR reachability advertisement between areas for every IP
        Flex-Algorithm in which it participates and the ASBR is reachable
        in.</t>

        <t>The FAAM Sub-TLV as defined in <xref target="RFC9350"/>
        MUST NOT be used during IP Flex-Algorithm path calculation, the IPFAAM
        Sub-TLV MUST be used instead.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Calculating of IP Flex-Algorithm Paths">
      <t>The IP Flex-Algorithm is considered as yet another data-plane of the
      Flex-Algorithm as described in <xref target="RFC9350"/>.</t>

      <t>Participation in the IP Flex-Algorithm is signalled as described in
      <xref target="PARTICIPATION"/> and is specific to the IP Flex-Algorithm
      data-plane.</t>

      <t>Calculation of IP Flex-Algorithm paths follows what is described in
      <xref target="RFC9350"/>. This computation uses the IP
      Flex-Algorithm data-plane participation and is independent of the Flex-Algorithm
      calculation done for any other Flex-Algorithm data-plane (e.g., SR,
      SRv6).</t>

      <t>The IP Flex-Algorithm data-plane only considers participating nodes
      during the Flex-Algorithm calculation. When computing paths for a given
      Flex-Algorithm, all nodes that do not advertise participation for the IP
      Flex-Algorithm, as described in <xref target="PARTICIPATION"/>, MUST be
      pruned from the topology.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="IP Flex-Algorithm Forwarding">
      <t>The IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability advertisement as described in <xref
      target="PARTICIPATION"/> includes the MTID value that associates the
      prefix with a specific topology. Algorithm Prefix Reachability
      advertisement also includes an Algorithm value that explicitly
      associates the prefix with a specific Flex-Algorithm. The paths to the
      prefix MUST be calculated using the specified Flex-Algorithm in the
      associated topology.</t>

      <t>Forwarding entries for the IP Flex-Algorithm prefixes advertised in
      IGPs MUST be installed in the forwarding plane of the receiving IP
      Flex-Algorithm prefix capable routers when they participate in the
      associated topology and algorithm. Forwarding entries for IP
      Flex-Algorithm prefixes associated with Flex-Algorithms in which the
      node is not participating MUST NOT be installed in the forwarding
      plane.</t>

      
    </section>

    <section title="Deployment Considerations">
      <t>IGP Flex-Algorithm can be used by many data-planes. The original
      specification was done for SR and SRv6, this specification adds IP as
      another data-plane that can use IGP Flex-Algorithm. Other data-planes
      may be defined in the future. This section provides some details about
      the coexistence of the various data-planes of an IGP Flex-Algorithm.</t>

      <t>Flex-Algorithm definition (FAD), as described in <xref
      target="RFC9350"/>, is data-plane independent and is
      used by all Flex-Algorithm data-planes.</t>

      <t>Participation in the Flex-Algorithm, as described in <xref
      target="RFC9350"/>, is data-plane specific.</t>

      <t>Calculation of the flex-algo paths is data-plane specific and uses
      data-plane specific participation advertisements.</t>

      <t>Data-plane specific participation and calculation guarantee that the
      forwarding of the traffic over the Flex-Algorithm data-plane specific
      paths is consistent between all nodes that apply the IGP Flex-Algorithm
      to the data-plane.</t>

      <t>Multiple data-planes can use the same Flex-Algorithm value at the
      same time and, and as such, share the FAD for it. For example, SR-MPLS and
      IP can both use a common Flex-Algorithm. Traffic for SR-MPLS will be
      forwarded based on Flex-algorithm specific SR SIDs. Traffic for IP
      Flex-Algorithm will be forwarded based on Flex-Algorithm specific prefix
      reachability advertisements. Note that for a particular Flex-Algorithm, for 
      a particular IP prefix, there will only be path(s) calculated and installed
      for a single data-plane.</t>
      
    </section>

    <section title="Protection">
      <t>In many networks where IGP Flexible Algorithms are deployed, IGP
      restoration will be fast and additional protection mechanisms will not
      be required. IGP restoration may be enhanced by Equal Cost Multipath
      (ECMP).</t>

      <t>In other networks, operators can deploy additional protection
      mechanisms. The following are examples:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t><xref target="RFC5286">Loop Free Alternates (LFA)</xref></t>

          <t><xref target="RFC7490">Remote Loop Free Alternates (R-LFA)
          </xref></t>
        </list>LFA and R-LFA computations MUST be restricted to the flex-algo
      topology and the computed backup nexthops should be programmed for the
      IP flex-algo prefixes.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This specification updates the OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs
      Registry as follows:</t>

      <t/>

      <texttable anchor="T1">
        <ttcol>Value</ttcol>

        <ttcol>TLV Name</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

        <c>TBD1</c>

        <c>IP Algorithm TLV</c>

        <c>This Document <xref target="OSPF-ALG_TLV"/></c>
      </texttable>

      <t>This document also updates the IS-IS "Sub-TLVs for TLV 242" registry as
      follows:</t>

      <t/>

      <texttable anchor="T2">
        <ttcol>Value</ttcol>

        <ttcol>TLV Name</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

        <c>29</c>

        <c>IP Algorithm Sub-TLV</c>

        <c>This Document <xref target="ISIS-ALG_TLV"/></c>
      </texttable>

      <t>This document also updates the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry"
      registry as follows:</t>

      <t/>

      <texttable anchor="T3">
        <ttcol>Value</ttcol>

        <ttcol>TLV Name</ttcol>

        <ttcol>IIH</ttcol>

        <ttcol>LSP</ttcol>

        <ttcol>SNP</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Purge</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

        <c>126</c>

        <c>IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV</c>

        <c>N</c>

        <c>Y</c>

        <c>N</c>

        <c>N</c>

        <c>This document, <xref target="ISIS-IPV4_PFX_TLV"/></c>

        <c>127</c>

        <c>IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV</c>

        <c>N</c>

        <c>Y</c>

        <c>N</c>

        <c>N</c>

        <c>This document, <xref target="ISIS-IPV6_PFX_TLV"/></c>
      </texttable>
      
      <t>Since the above TLVs share the sub-TLV space managed in the "IS-IS
   Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability" registry, IANA is
   requested to add "IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (126)" and
   "IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (127)" to the list of TLVs in
   the description of that registry.</t>
   
   <t>In addition, columns headed '126' and '127' are added to that registry,
   as follows:</t>
      
      <t><figure> 
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 
     Type  Description                          126 127
     ----  ----------------------------------   --- ---  
      1    32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV     y   y
      2    64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV     y   y
      3    Prefix Segment Identifier             n   n
      4    Prefix Attribute Flags                y   y
      5    SRv6 End SID                          n   n
      6    Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric          n   n
      11   IPv4 Source Router ID                 y   y
      12   IPv6 Source Router ID                 y   y
      32   BIER Info                             n   n
     ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      

      <t>This document updates the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs"
      registry as follows:</t>

      <t/>

      <texttable anchor="T4">
        <ttcol>Value</ttcol>

        <ttcol>TLV Name</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

        <c>TBD2</c>

        <c>OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV</c>

        <c>This Document, <xref target="OSPF-IPV4_PFX_TLV"/></c>
        
        <c>TBD4</c>

        <c>OSPFv2 IP Forwarding Address Sub-TLV</c>

        <c>This Document, <xref target="OSPFV2_FA-SUBTLV"/></c>
        
      </texttable>
      
      <t>This document creates a new registry under "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) 
      Parameters" registry, called  "IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Flags". The
      new registry defines the bits in the 8-bit Flags field in the OSPFv2 IP Algorithm 
      Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV (<xref target="OSPF-IPV4_PFX_TLV"/>). New bits can 
      be allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
      
      <texttable anchor="T5">
        <ttcol>Bit #</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Name</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

        <c>0</c>

        <c>bit E</c>

        <c>This Document, <xref target="OSPF-IPV4_PFX_TLV"/></c>
        
        <c>1-7</c>

        <c>Reserved</c>

        <c>This Document, <xref target="OSPF-IPV4_PFX_TLV"/></c>
        
      </texttable>

      <t>This document updates the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry as
      follows:</t>

      <t/>

      <texttable anchor="T6">
        <ttcol>Value</ttcol>

        <ttcol>TLV Name</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

        <c>TBD3</c>

        <c>OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV</c>

        <c>This Document, <xref target="OSPFV3_ALGTLV"/></c>

        <c>TBD5</c>

        <c>OSPFv3 IP Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV</c>

        <c>This Document, <xref target="IPFAAL"/></c>
      </texttable>

      <t>This document updates the "OSPFv2 Extended Inter-Area ASBR Sub-TLVs"
      registry as follows:</t>

      <t/>

      <texttable anchor="T7">
        <ttcol>Value</ttcol>

        <ttcol>TLV Name</ttcol>

        <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

        <c>2</c>

        <c>OSPF IP Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric Sub-TLV</c>

        <c>This Document, <xref target="IPFAAL"/></c>
      </texttable>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This document inherits security considerations from <xref
      target="RFC9350"/>.</t>
	        
      <t>This document adds one new way to disrupt IGP networks that are using	
	  Flex-Algorithm: an attacker can suppress reachability for a given	
	  prefix whose reachability is advertised by a legitimate node for a	
	  particular IP Flex-Algorithm X, by advertising the same prefix in	
	  Flex-Algorithm Y from another, malicious node. (To see why this is,	
	  consider, for example, the rule given in the second-last paragraph of	
	  <xref target="ISIS-IPV4_PFX_TLV"/>).</t>
		 		
	  <t>This attack can be addressed by the existing security extensions, as	
	  described in <xref target="RFC5304"/> and <xref target="RFC5310"/> for IS-IS, 
	  in <xref target="RFC2328"/> and <xref target="RFC7474"/>for OSPFv2, and in 
	  <xref target="RFC4552"/> and <xref target="RFC5340"/> for OSPFv3.</t>	
		 		
	  <t>If a node that is authenticated is taken over by an attacker, such a	
	  rogue node can perform the attack described above.  Such an attack is	
	  not preventable through authentication, and it is not different from	
	  advertising any other incorrect information through IS-IS or OSPF.</t>
      
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>Thanks to Bruno Decraene for his contributions to this document.
      Special thanks to Petr Bonbon Adamec of Cesnet for supporting
      interoperability testing.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2328'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4552'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5120'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5304'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5308'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5310'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5340'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4915'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7770'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7474'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7981'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9350'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9352'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8362'?>
      
      <?fc include='reference.RFC.5305'?>

      <reference anchor="ISO10589" target="ISO/IEC 10589:2002">
        <front>
          <title>Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing
          information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the
          Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO
          8473)</title>


          <author>
            <organization abbrev="ISO">International Organization for
            Standardization</organization>
          </author>

          <date month="Nov" year="2002"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
	  <reference anchor='TS.23.501-3GPP'>
        <front>
        <title>System Architecture for 5G System; Stage 2, 3GPP TS 23.501 v16.4.0</title>
        <author>
        <organization>
        3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
        </organization>
        </author>
        <date month="March" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
	  
      <reference anchor="IANA-ALG"
                 target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types">
        <front>
          <title>Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV)</title>

          <author fullname="" initials="" surname="">
            <organization>IANA</organization>
          </author>

          <date month="August" year="1987"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8402'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8126'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5286'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7490'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8986'?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
