Internet-Draft algo-related adj-sid October 2025
Chen, et al. Expires 19 April 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
LSR
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid-08
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
Ran. Chen
ZTE Corporation
Shaofu. Peng
ZTE Corporation
Ketan. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
Peter. Psenak
Cisco Systems

Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement

Abstract

The SR policy architecture defines the Prefix-SID algorithm, with an algorithm identifier included in the Prefix-SID advertisement. However, the Prefix-SID algorithm does not address scenarios where multiple algorithms share the same link resources. This document proposes adding the algorithm identifier in an Adjacency-SID advertisement.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 April 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Segment Routing (SR) architecture [RFC8402] defines the Prefix-SID algorithm, with an algorithm identifier included in the Prefix-SID advertisement.

IGP Flex Algorithm [RFC9350] proposes a solution that allows IGPs themselves to compute constraint based paths over the network, and it also specifies a way of using Segment Routing (SR) Prefix-SIDs and SRv6 locators to steer packets along the constraint-based paths. It specifies a set of extensions to ISIS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 that enable a router to send TLVs that identify (a) calculation-type, (b) specify a metric-type, and (c) describe a set of constraints on the topology, that are to be used to compute the best paths along the constrained topology. A given combination of calculation-type, metric-type, and constraints is known as an FAD (Flexible Algorithm Definition).

However, an algorithm identifier is often included as part of a Prefix-SID advertisement, that maybe not satisfy some scenarios where multiple algorithm share the same link resource. In addition to Prefix-SID, this document complement that the algorithm identifier can be also included as part of an Adjacency-SID advertisement for SR-MPLS, so that each Flex-algo plane corresponding to different algorithm types can be allocated with a dedicated segment ID related to the corresponding algorithm type.

2. Requirements Language

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

3. Use Cases

Typical application scenarios of the algorithm related SID are as follows:

4. Adjacency Segment Identifier(SID) per Algorithm

This section describe that the algorithm related SID is flooded through the IGP protocol.

4.1. ISIS Adjacency Segment Identifier per Algorithm

[RFC8667] describes the IS-IS extensions that need to be introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data plane. It defined Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) sub-TLV advertised with TLV-22/222/23/223/141, and Adjacency Segment Identifier (LAN-Adj-SID) Sub-TLV advetised with TLV-22/222/23/223. Accordingly, this document defines two new optional Sub-TLVs, "ISIS Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV" and "ISIS LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV", which contain the algorithm type fields.

4.1.1. ISIS Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV

ISIS Adjacency-SID per Algorithm 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     |     Weight    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Algorithm   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         SID/Label/Index (variable)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: ISIS Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Format

where:

Type: TBD1.

Length: 6 or 7 depending on size of the SID.

Flags: Refer to Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) sub-TLV.

Weight: Refer to Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) sub-TLV.

Algorithm: The Algorithm field contains the identifier of the algorithm the router uses to apply algorithm specific treatment configured on the adjacency.

SID/Label/Index: Refer to Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) sub-TLV.

For a P2P link, an SR-capable router MAY allocate different Adjacency-SIDs for different algorithms, if this link participates in the plane related to different algorithms.

4.1.2. ISIS LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV

ISIS LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm 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    |    Weight     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Algorithm   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Neighbor System-ID (ID length octets)        |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   SID/Label/Index (variable)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: ISIS LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Format

where:

Type: TBD2.

Length: Variable.

Flags: Refer to Adjacency Segment Identifier (LAN-Adj-SID) Sub-TLV.

Weight: Refer to Adjacency Segment Identifier (LAN-Adj-SID) Sub-TLV.

Algorithm: The Algorithm field contains the identifier of the algorithm the router uses to apply algorithm specific treatment configured on the adjacency.

SID/Label/Index: Refer to Adjacency Segment Identifier (LAN-Adj-SID) Sub-TLV.

For a broadcast link, an SR-capable router MAY allocate different Adjacency-SIDs for different algorithms, if this link participates in the plane related to different algorithms.

4.2. OSPFv2 Adjacency Segment Identifier per Algorithm

[RFC8665] describes the OSPFv2 extensions that need to be introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data plane. It defined Adj-SID Sub-TLV and LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV advertised with Extended Link TLV defined in [RFC7684]. Accordingly, this document defines two new optional Sub-TLVs, "OSPFv2 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV" and "OSPFv2 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV", which contain the algorithm type fields.

4.2.1. OSPFv2 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV

OSPFv2 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm 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     |   Algorithm   |     MT-ID     |  Weight       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   SID/Label/Index (variable)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: OSPFv2 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Format

where:

Type: TBD3

Length: 7 or 8 octets, depending on the V-Flag.

Flags: Refer to OSPFv2 Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Algorithm: The Algorithm field contains the identifier of the algorithm the router uses to apply algorithm specific treatment configured on the adjacency.

MT-ID: Refer to OSPFv2 Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Weight: Refer to OSPFv2 Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

SID/Index/Label: Refer to OSPFv2 Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

For a P2P link, an SR-capable router MAY allocate different Adjacency-SIDs for different algorithms, if this link participates in the plane related to different algorithms.

4.2.2. OSPFv2 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV

OSPFv2 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm 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     |   Algorithm   |     MT-ID     |    Weight     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Neighbor ID                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    SID/Label/Index (variable)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: OSPFv2 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Format

where:

Type: TBD4

Length: 11 or 12 octets, depending on the V-Flag.

Flags: Refer to OSPFv2 LAN Adjacency-SID Sub-TLV.

Algorithm: The Algorithm field contains the identifier of the algorithm the router uses to apply algorithm specific treatment configured on the adjacency.

MT-ID: Refer to OSPFv2 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Weight: Refer to OSPFv2 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Neighbor ID: Refer to OSPFv2 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

SID/Index/Label: Refer to OSPFv2 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

For a broadcast link, an SR-capable router MAY allocate different Adjacency-SIDs for different algorithms, if this link participates in the plane related to different algorithms.

4.3. OSPFv3 Adjacency Segment Identifier per Algorithm

[RFC8666] describes the OSPFv3 extensions that need to be introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data plane. It defined Adj-SID Sub-TLV and LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV advertised with Router-Link TLV as defined in [RFC8362]. Accordingly, this document defines two new optional Sub-TLVs, "OSPFv3 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV" and "OSPFv3 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV", which contain the algorithm type fields.

4.3.1. OSPFv3 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV

OSPFv3 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm 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     |     Weight    |   Algorithm   |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   SID/Label/Index (variable)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: OSPFv3 Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Format

where:

Type: TBD5

Length: 7 or 8 octets, depending on the V-Flag.

Flags: Refer to OSPFv3 Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Weight: Refer to OSPFv3 Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Algorithm: The Algorithm field contains the identifier of the algorithm the router uses to apply algorithm specific treatment configured on the adjacency.

Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.

SID/Index/Label: Refer to OSPFv3 Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

For a P2P link, an SR-capable router MAY allocate different Adjacency-SIDs for different algorithms, if this link participates in the plane related to different algorithms.

4.3.2. OSPFv3 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV

OSPFv3 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm 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     |     Weight    |   Algorithm   |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Neighbor ID                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    SID/Label/Index (variable)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: OSPFv3 LAN Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Format

where:

Type: TBD6

Length: 11 or 12 octets, depending on the V-Flag.

Flags: Refer to OSPFv3 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Weight: Refer to OSPFv3 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

Algorithm: The Algorithm field contains the identifier of the algorithm the router uses to apply algorithm specific treatment configured on the adjacency.

Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.

Neighbor ID: Refer to OSPFv3 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

SID/Index/Label: Refer to OSPFv3 LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV.

For a broadcast link, an SR-capable router MAY allocate different Adjacency-SIDs for different algorithms, if this link participates in the plane related to different algorithms.

5. Procedures

The method introduced in this document enables the traffic of different flex-algo plane to be distinguished when they are routed on the same link, and can be applied with different local treatment (such as providing different repair paths, traffic statistics, QoS policies, etc) per algorithm.

A node may, according to each flex-algo plane (corresponding to the specific algorithm types) which it participated in, allocate segment identifiers corresponding to each algorithm types, and these segment identifiers need to be flooded through IGP. As defined in Section 4, algorithm field must be encoded in the flooded packet.

Depending on implementation, SIDs allocation is generally triggered by configuration. For algorithm specific Adjacency-SID, one of the difficulties is that during this configuration phase it is not straightforward for a link to be included in an Flex-algo plane, as this can only be determined after all nodes in the network have negotiated the FAD. Note that Node-SID per algorithm may also face similar difficulties (considering the abnormal situation where nodes have to stop participating in the flex-algo plane after FAD negotiation, referring to section 5.3 of [RFC9350]).

Developers can flexibly refer to any of the following implementation choices.

The RECOMMENDED implementation choice also make sense for other type of states per algorithm. A node may, according to each flex-algo plane (corresponding to the specific algorithm types) which it participated in, config local treatments (such as repair paths, traffic statistics counters, QoS policies, etc) corresponding to each algorithm types and apply them to the links that participated in the corresponding flex-algo plane. In this case, the node may dynamically create or delete these local treatments according to the result of FAD negotiation.

The (LAN) Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise algorithm 0 specific SIDs.

Note that the advertisement specification defined in Section 4 does not have any requirements for the SID allocation rules. Some particular advertisement method based on particular allocation rules are not within the scope of this document.

Once the node originates an algorithm specific Adjacency-SID and sends it to the network, the coresponding local SID entry (i.e., an MPLS label forwarding entry) must be installed on the fowarding plane. The local SID entry, combined with local treatments (such as QoS polices), are used to continue to forward data packets in the context of the specific algorithm.

A node may receive different algo-SIDs (corresponding to different algorithm types with the related flex-algo plane) originated from other nodes and flooded by IGP. As defined in Section 4, the algorithm field can be gotten from the flooded packet to indicate algorithm specific SIDs. Then, algo-SIDs, with other SIDs, are maintained in the link state database.

If the received algorithm is not within the range (128,255), the related (LAN) Adjacency-SID per Algorithm Sub-TLV MUST be ingored.

When a node receives a forwarding data packet whose active segment is an algorithm specific Adjacency-SID and matches the coresponding local SID entry, the node forwards the data packet to the corresponding outgoing port and applies algorithm related local treatments (such as QoS policies) to the packet. The local treatments may also be applied for the case of algorithm specific Node-SID.

5.1. Examples of Algorithm Specific Adjacency-SID

The following figure shows an example of algorithm specific Adjacency-SID.

        [S1]--------[D]--------[S2]
         |           |          |
         |           |          |
         |           |          |
        [A]---------[B]--------[C]
Figure 7: Flex-algo LFA Path with Algorithm Specific Adjacency-SID

Suppose that node S1, A, B, D and their inter-connected links belongs to FA-id 128 plane, and S2, B, C, D and their inter-connected links belongs to FA-id 129 plane. The IGP metric of link B-D is 100, and all other links have IGP metric 1. Both FA-id 128 and 129 use IGP default metric type for path calculation. In FA-id 128 plane, from S1 to destination D, the primary path is S1-D, and the TI-LFA backup path is segment list {node(B), adjacency(B-D)}. Similarly, In FA-id 129 plane, from S2 to destination D, the primary path is S2-D, and the TI-LFA backup path is segment list {node(B), adjacency(B-D)}. The above TI-LFA path of FA-id 128 plane can be translated to {node-SID(B)@FA-id128, adjacency-SID(B-D)@FA-id128}, and TI-LFA path of FA-id 129 plane will be translated to {node-SID(B)@FA-id129, adjacency-SID(B-D)@FA-id129}. So that node B can distinguish the flows of FA-id 128 and FA-id 129 based on different adjacency-SID(B-D) and their related label forwarding entries, and take different treatments of them when they are forwarded to the same outgoing link B-D.

6. Deployment Considerations

When multiple flex-algos are deployed in the network and they share the same link, multiple algorithm specific Adjacency-SIDs may need to be allocated on such a link, to distinguish the traffic of different algorithms and provide possible different treatment.

Even if a link is only used by a single flex-algo, because the link always belongs to algorithm 0 by default, both the traditional Adjacency-SID (termd as adj-sid@algo-0) and the algorithm specific Adjacency-SID (termd as adj-sid@algo-x) may need to be allocated on that link, so that the potentional repair paths of the two Adjacency-SIDs can be distinguished.

If the topology of multiple flex-algo planes, and physical topology, are isomorphic, that is, they contain the same nodes and same inter-connected links, but due to the differences between these FADs (such as different metric types), different repair paths will also be calculated on the same topology. Therefore, multiple algorithm specific Adjacency-SIDs may still need to be provided on the same link.

It is not recommended to bind a link to algorithm 1 (Strict SPF) and allocate adj-sid@algo-1. Such Adjacency-SID is no useful.

The operator may configure the policy on the node to turn off the algorithm specific processing capability for each algorithm, and the node will not allocate algorithm specific Adjacency-SIDs on the links those joined to the flex-algo plane, this is a local behavior. As mentioned before, the algorithm specific processing capability can be further subdivided into repair path per algorithm, statistics per algorithm, QoS policy per algorithm, etc. Assuming that a node wants to support the capability of repair path per algorithm, in this case, for an individual link, it is also controlled by the adjacency backup capability. When adjacency backup is disabled, it will let the capablitiy of repair path per algorithm be also invalid, so the link does not need to allocate algorithm specific Adjacency-SIDs.

In any case, when instantiate a segment list (such as a TI-LFA path) within a specific flex-algo plane, for each Adjacency Segment of that list, if it has a corresponding algorithm specific Adjacency-SID, the algorithm specific Adjacency-SID MUST be used to construct SID list; if it has not, traditional Adjacency-SID can be used.

7. IANA Considerations

7.1. IANA ISIS Considerations

This document makes the following registrations in the "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223" registry.

   +------+--------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
   | Type | Description        | 22 | 23 | 25 | 141 | 222 | 223 |
   +======+====================+====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+
   |      | Adjacency-SID per  |    |    |    |     |     |     |
   | TBD1 | Algorithm          | y  | y  | n  |  y  |  y  |  y  |
   +------+--------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+
   |      | LAN Adjacency-SID  |    |    |    |     |     |     |
   | TBD2 | per Algorithm      | y  | y  | n  |  y  |  y  |  y  |
   +------+--------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+

7.2. IANA OSPFv2 Considerations

This document makes the following registrations in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs Registry.

   +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Value | Description                        | Reference     |
   +=======+====================================+===============+
   | TBD3  | OSPFv2 Adjacency-SID               | This document |
   |       | per Algorithm Sub-TLV              |               |
   +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
   | TBD4  | OSPFv2 LAN Adjacency-SID           | This document |
   |       | per Algorithm Sub-TLV              |               |
   +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+

7.3. IANA OSPFv3 Considerations

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

   +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Value | Description                        | Reference     |
   +=======+====================================+===============+
   | TBD5  | OSPFv3 Adjacency-SID               | This document |
   |       | per Algorithm Sub-TLV              |               |
   +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
   | TBD6  | OSPFv3 LAN Adjacency-SID           | This document |
   |       | per Algorithm Sub-TLV              |               |
   +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+

8. Security Considerations

There are no new security issues introduced by the extensions in this document. Refer to [RFC8665], [RFC8666], [RFC8667] for other security considerations.

9. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Aijun Wang, Robert Raszuk, Gyan Mishra, Jie Dong and Xuesong Geng for their reviews and discussions to the content of this document.

10. Contributors

The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content of this document.

Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States of America
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

11. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, , <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, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[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, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
[RFC8667]
Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
[RFC9350]
Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350, DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.

Authors' Addresses

Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
China
Shaofu Peng
ZTE Corporation
China
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
India
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Slovakia