<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?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-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric-04"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP LS for BGP-only Fabric">BGP Link-State Extensions for
    BGP-only Networks</title>

    <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar" initials="K" surname="Talaulikar">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <code/>

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

        <email>ketant.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Aravind Babu MahendraBabu" initials="A." role="editor"
            surname="MahendraBabu">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

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

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

    <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C" surname="Filsfils">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Brussels</city>

          <code/>

          <country>Belgium</country>
        </postal>

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

    <author fullname="Krishna Swamy" initials="K" surname="Swamy">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <code/>

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

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

    <author fullname="Shawn Zandi" initials="S" surname="Zandi">
      <organization>LinkedIn</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <code/>

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

        <email>szandi@linkedin.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Gaurav Dawra" initials="G" surname="Dawra">
      <organization>LinkedIn</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <code/>

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

        <email>gdawra.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Muhammad Durrani" initials="M" surname="Durrani">
      <organization>Equinix</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <code/>

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

        <email>mdurrani@equinix.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year=""/>

    <area>Routing</area>

    <workgroup>Inter-Domain Routing</workgroup>

    <keyword>BGP</keyword>

    <keyword>Segment Routing</keyword>

    <keyword>MPLS</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>BGP is used as the only routing protocol in some networks today. In
      such networks, it is useful to get a detailed topology view similar to
      one available when using link state routing protocols. This document
      defines extensions to the BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family and the
      procedures for advertisement of topology information in a BGP-only
      network.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="INTRO" title="Introduction">
      <t>Network operators are going for a BGP-only routing protocol for
      certain networks like Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs). <xref
      target="RFC7938"/> describes the requirement, design and operational
      aspects for use of BGP as the only routing protocol in MSDCs. The
      underlying link and topology information between BGP routers is
      abstracted in this design for improving scalability and stability in a
      large scale network. As a result, a detailed topology view consisting of
      nodes, links and prefixes that is available when operating link-state
      routing protocols is not available in these BGP-only networks.</t>

      <t>BGP Link-State (BGP-LS)<xref target="RFC9552"> </xref> enables
      advertisement of a link state topology from link-state IGP protocols via
      BGP that can be consumed by a controller or in general any software
      component to get a complete topology view of the network. BGP-LS
      extensions for advertisement of certain aspects of a BGP topology for 
      the Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) use-case <xref target="RFC9087"/> are
      specified in <xref target="RFC9086"/>. This document leverages the
      BGP-LS extensions that were defined for EPE and other BGP-LS features.
      The document specifies the procedures for advertising the underlying
      topology in a BGP-only network.</t>

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

    <section anchor="BGPROUTING" title="BGP Routing in the Fabric">
      <t>The applicability of this specification is limited to those
      deployments where BGP is used as hop-by-hop routing protocol between
      directly connected nodes in the fabric. While a data-center design <xref
      target="RFC7938"/> is used as a reference, the topology advertisement
      and its use for computation may also apply to other networks with
      BGP-only fabric or to BGP-only portions of a larger network
      topology.</t>

      <t>BGP hop-by-hop routing can be setup using EBGP single-hop sessions
      over individual links between directly connected routers using their
      link addresses for peering as described in <xref target="RFC7938"/>. In
      such a design, the neighbors' link addresses may be provisioned for
      peering and the EBGP session operating directly over the link performs
      the monitoring of the neighbor on that link. A variation of this design
      would be that the EBGP session is setup between directly connected
      routers using their loopback sessions. The mechanisms for discovery of
      the neighbor's link addresses and their monitoring on a per link basis
      are outside the scope of this document.</t>

      <t>Though this document uses the EBGP based design as a reference, it
      does not preclude other alternate designs using IBGP.</t>

      <t>This document does not change base BGP routing protocol operations in
      the BGP-only network fabric that provides routing using the BGP best
      path selection process <xref target="RFC4271"/> .</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="TOPOCOLLECT" title="Topology Collection Mechanism">
      <t>To provide a topological view in networks where BGP is the only
      routing protocol, each BGP router advertises information about its local
      node, links, and prefixes. <xref target="MECHANISM-CONSUMER-PRODUCER"/>
      describes a typical deployment scenario. Every BGP router in the network
      is enabled for BGP-LS and forms BGP-LS sessions with one or more
      centralized BGP-LS speakers over which it sends its local topology
      information.</t>

      <t>Each BGP router MAY also receive the topology information from all
      other BGP routers via these centralized BGP-LS speakers. This way, any
      BGP router (as also the centralized BGP-LS speakers) MAY obtain
      aggregated Link-State information for the entire BGP network. An
      external component (e.g. a controller) can obtain this information from
      the centralized BGP-LS speakers or directly by doing BGP-LS peering to
      the BGP routers. An internal software component on any of the BGP
      routers (e.g. TE module) can also receive the entire BGP network
      topology information from its local BGP process.</t>

      <figure anchor="MECHANISM-CONSUMER-PRODUCER"
              title="Link State Information Collection in a BGP Network">
        <artwork><![CDATA[               
               +------------+
               | Controller |
               +------------+
                     ^
                     |
                     v
            +-------------------+
            |  BGP-LS Speaker   |       +------------+
            |  (Centralized)    |       | Controller |
            +-------------------+       +------------+
                  ^   ^   ^                   ^
                  |   |   |                   |
      +-----------+   |   +---------------+   |
      |               |                   |   |
      v               v                   v   v
 +-----------+    +-----------+         +-----------+    +----------+
 |    BGP    |    |    BGP    |         |    BGP    |<-->| Local    |
 |  Router   |    |  Router   |  . . .  |  Router   |    | Consumer |
 +-----------+    +-----------+         +-----------+    +----------+
      ^                ^                    ^
      |                |                    |
  Local Info       Local Info            Local Info
 (node & links)  (node & links)         (node & links)
        ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t/>

      <section anchor="PEERING" title="Peering Models">
        <t>The peering model described above relies on the base BGP IPv4 or
        IPv6 routing underlay (e.g. as described in <xref target="RFC7938"/>)
        or any other mechanism for reachability for the BGP-LS session
        establishment with the centralized BGP speakers. A variation of this
        model would be to setup reachability to the centralized BGP speakers
        (or controller) over the out of band management network and for each
        BGP router in the fabric to use this management network for the BGP-LS
        session establishment with the centralized BGP speakers. This
        variation removes the dependency between the topology learning via
        BGP-LS from the reachability over the BGP routing in the fabric.</t>

        <t>Another alternate design would be to enable the BGP-LS
        address-family as well on the hop-by-hop EBGP sessions in the underlay
        described in <xref target="RFC7938"/>. This approach results in the
        topology information being flooded via BGP-LS hop-by-hop along the BGP
        routers in the network. Other peering designs for BGP-LS sessions may
        also be possible and they are not precluded by this document.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="TOPOADVT" title="Advertising BGP-only Network Topology">
      <t><xref target="RFC9552">BGP-LS</xref> defines the BGP-LS NLRI types
      (i.e. Node NLRI, Link NLRI and Prefix NLRI) along with their
      corresponding BGP-LS Attribute (i.e. Node Attribute, Link Attribute or
      Prefix Attribute) and the TLVs that map to the respective NLRI and
      Attribute for each type.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC9086"/> specifies the BGP Protocol ID to be used for
      signaling BGP EPE information and the same is used for advertising of
      topology information in a BGP-only network.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC9514"/> defines the BGP-LS NLRI that can be used 
      to advertise Segment Routing for IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifier (SID) 
      information instantiated on a BGP Router.</t>

      <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"/> defines the BGP-LS
      NLRIs that can be used to advertise information about Segment Routing 
      (SR) Policies instantiated on a BGP Router headend.</t>

      <t>The following sub-sections specify the use of these encodings by a
      router running BGP protocol.</t>

      <section anchor="NODE" title="Node Advertisements">
        <t><xref target="RFC9552"/> defines Node NLRI Type and the Node
        Descriptor TLVs as follows:<figure>
            <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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Protocol-ID  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                           Identifier                          |
 |                            (64 bits)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                Local Node Descriptors (variable)            //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
          </figure><xref target="RFC9086"/> introduces additional Node
        Descriptor TLVs for BGP protocol that are required to be used.</t>

        <t>The following Node Descriptors TLVs MUST appear in the Node NLRI as
        Local Node Descriptors:<list style="symbols">
            <t>Autonomous System Number (TLV 512), which contains the
            advertising router ASN.</t>

            <t>BGP Router-ID (TLV 516), which contains the BGP Identifier of
            the originating BGP router.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Node NLRI MAY include the
        following TLVs that are defined in respective documents to signal the
        router properties and capabilities (<xref target="NODE-PROCEDURES"/>
        defines the procedures for their advertisements):</t>

        <texttable anchor="NODE-ATTR" title="Node Attribute TLVs">
          <ttcol align="center">TLV Code Point</ttcol>

          <ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol>

          <ttcol align="left">Reference Document</ttcol>

          <c>266</c>

          <c>Node MSD</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8814"/></c>

          <c>1026</c>

          <c>Node Name</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1028</c>

          <c>IPv4 TE Router-ID</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1029</c>

          <c>IPv6 TE Router-ID</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1032</c>

          <c>S-BFD Discriminators</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9247"/></c>

          <c>1034</c>

          <c>SR Capabilities</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9085"/></c>

          <c>1035</c>

          <c>SR Algorithm</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9085"/></c>

          <c>1036</c>

          <c>SR Local Block</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9085"/></c>

          <c>1038</c>

          <c>SRv6 Capabilities</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9514"/></c>
        </texttable>

        <t>The above list of TLVs is not exhaustive but indicative as of the
        time of writing of this document.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="LINK" title="Link Advertisements">
        <t><xref target="RFC9552"/> defines Link NLRI Type and its Node and
        Link Descriptor TLVs as follows:<figure>
            <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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Protocol-ID  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                           Identifier                          |
 |                            (64 bits)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //               Local Node Descriptors (variable)             //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //               Remote Node Descriptors (variable)            //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                  Link Descriptors (variable)                //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

        <t>The following Node Descriptors TLVs MUST appear in the Link NLRI as
        Local Node Descriptors:<list style="symbols">
            <t>Autonomous System Number (TLV 512), which contains the
            advertising router ASN.</t>

            <t>BGP Router-ID (TLV 516), which contains the BGP Identifier of
            the originating BGP router.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The following Node Descriptors TLVs MUST appear in the Link NLRI as
        Remote Node Descriptors:<list style="symbols">
            <t>Autonomous System Number (TLV 512), which contains the peer
            ASN.</t>

            <t>BGP Router-ID (TLV 516), which contains the BGP Identifier of
            the peer BGP router.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The following Link Descriptors TLVs MUST appear in the Link NLRI as
        Link Descriptors:<list style="symbols">
            <t>Link Local/Remote Identifiers (TLV 258) containing the 4-octet
            Link Local Identifier followed by the 4-octet Link Remote
            Identifier. The value 0 MUST be used for the Link Remote
            Identifier when the value is unknown.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>In addition, the following Link Descriptors TLVs SHOULD appear in
        the Link NLRI as Link Descriptors based on the address family used for
        setting up the BGP Peering or the addresses configured on the
        links:<list style="symbols">
            <t>IPv4 Interface Address (TLV 259) contains the address of the
            local interface through which the BGP session is established using
            IPv4 address.</t>

            <t>IPv4 Neighbor Address (TLV 260) contains the IPv4 address of
            the peer interface used by the BGP session establishment using
            IPv4 address.</t>

            <t>IPv6 Interface Address (TLV 261) contains the address of the
            local interface through which the BGP session is established using
            IPv6 address.</t>

            <t>IPv6 Neighbor Address (TLV 262) contains the IPv6 address of
            the peer interface used by the BGP session establishment using
            IPv6 address.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Link NLRI MAY include the
        following TLVs that are defined in respective documents to signal the
        router's local links' properties and capabilities (<xref
        target="LINK-PROCEDURES"/> defines the procedures for their
        advertisements) :</t>

        <texttable anchor="LINK-ATTR" title="Link Attribute TLVs">
          <ttcol align="center">TLV Code Point</ttcol>

          <ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol>

          <ttcol align="left">Reference Document</ttcol>

          <c>267</c>

          <c>Link MSD</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8814"/></c>

          <c>1088</c>

          <c>Administrative group (color)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1089</c>

          <c>Maximum link bandwidth</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1092</c>

          <c>TE Default Metric</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1096</c>

          <c>SRLG</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1098</c>

          <c>Link Name</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1101</c>

          <c>EPE Peer Node SID</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9086"/></c>

          <c>1102</c>

          <c>EPE Peer Adj SID</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9086"/></c>

          <c>1103</c>

          <c>EPE Peer Set SID</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9086"/></c>

          <c>1106</c>

          <c>SRv6 End.X SID</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9514"/></c>

          <c>1114</c>

          <c>Unidirectional link delay</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8571"/></c>

          <c>1115</c>

          <c>Min/Max Unidirectional link delay</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8571"/></c>

          <c>1116</c>

          <c>Unidirectional delay variation</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8571"/></c>

          <c>1117</c>

          <c>Unidirectional link loss</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8571"/></c>

          <c>1172</c>

          <c>L2 Bundle Member</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9085"/></c>

          <c>1173</c>

          <c>Extended Administrative group (color)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9104"/></c>
        </texttable>

        <t>The above list of TLVs is not exhaustive but indicative as of the
        time of writing of this document.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="PREFIX" title="Prefix Advertisements">
        <t><xref target="RFC9552"/> defines Prefix NLRI Type and its Node and
        Prefix Descriptor TLVs as follows:<figure>
            <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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Protocol-ID  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                           Identifier                          |
 |                            (64 bits)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //              Local Node Descriptors (variable)              //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                Prefix Descriptors (variable)                //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

        <t>The following Node Descriptors TLVs MUST appear in the Prefix NLRI
        as Local Node Descriptors:<list style="symbols">
            <t>Autonomous System Number (TLV 512), which contains the
            advertising router ASN.</t>

            <t>BGP Router-ID (TLV 516), which contains the BGP Identifier of
            the originating BGP router</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The Prefix Descriptor MUST contain the IP Reachability Information
        TLV (TLV 265) to identify the prefix.</t>

        <t>This document defines a new BGP Route Type TLV that MUST be
        included in the Prefix Descriptor when the BGP node advertises the
        Prefix NLRI. The format of this TLV is as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <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            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Route Type   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
          </figure>Where:</t>

        <t><list>
            <t>Type: 2-octet field with value TBD.</t>

            <t>Length: 2-octet field with value set to 1.</t>

            <t>Route Type: 1-octet with the following values defined: <figure
                anchor="BGPRTTYPES" title="BGP Route Types">
                <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[  
 +-----+---------------+------------------------------------------+
 |Value|     Type      |      Description                         |
 +-----+---------------+------------------------------------------+
 |  1  | Local         | Local interface prefix e.g. Loopback     |
 |  2  | Attached      | Directly attached node's prefix e.g host |
 |  3  | External BGP  | Prefix learnt via EBGP                   |
 |  4  | Internal BGP  | Prefix learnt via IBGP                   |
 |  5  | Redistributed | Prefix redistributed into BGP            |
 +-----+---------------+------------------------------------------+

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

        <t>The BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Prefix NLRI MAY include
        the following TLVs that are defined in respective documents to signal
        the router's own prefix properties and capabilities (<xref
        target="PREFIX-PROCEDURES"/> defines the procedures for their
        advertisements):</t>

        <texttable anchor="PREFIX-ATTR" title="Prefix Attribute TLVs">
          <ttcol align="center">TLV Code Point</ttcol>

          <ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol>

          <ttcol align="left">Reference Document</ttcol>

          <c>1155</c>

          <c>Prefix Metric</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9552"/></c>

          <c>1158</c>

          <c>Prefix SID</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9085"/></c>

          <c>1162</c>

          <c>SRv6 Locator</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9514"/></c>

          <c>1170</c>

          <c>Prefix Attributes Flags</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9085"/></c>

          <c>1171</c>

          <c>Source Router Identifier</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC9085"/></c>
        </texttable>

        <t>The above list of TLVs is not exhaustive but indicative as of the
        time of writing of this document.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="SRPOL" title="SR Policy Advertisements">
        <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"/> defines SR Policy
        Candidate Path NLRI Type with its Headend Node and SR Policy Candidate 
        Path Descriptor TLVs as follows:<figure>
            <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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Protocol-ID  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                        Identifier                             |
 |                        (64 bits)                              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                Headend (Node Descriptors)                   //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //       SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptors (variable)       //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

        <t>The Headend Node Descriptors TLVs are the same as specified in
        <xref target="NODE"/>. The semantics for the SR Policy Candidate 
        Path Descriptor TLVs and the TLVs associated with the BGP-LS 
        Attribute are used as specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"/>.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="SRV6" title="SRv6 SID Advertisements">
        <t><xref target="RFC9514"/> defines SRv6 NLRI Type
        and its Local Node and SRv6 SID Descriptor TLVs as follows:<figure>
            <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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Protocol-ID  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                        Identifier                             |
 |                        (8 octets)                             |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |               Local Node Descriptors (variable)              //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |               SRv6 SID Descriptors (variable)                //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

        <t>The Local Node Descriptors TLVs are the same as specified in <xref
        target="NODE"/>. The semantics for the SRv6 SID Descriptor TLVs and
        the TLVs associated with the BGP-LS Attribute are used as specified in
        <xref target="RFC9514"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="PROCEDURES" title="Procedures">
      <t>In a network where BGP is the only routing protocol, the BGP-LS
      session is used to advertise the necessary information about the local
      node properties, its local links' properties and where necessary the
      prefix's owned by the node. TE Policies, that are instantiated on the
      local node (i.e. when it is the head-end for the policy), along with
      their properties are also advertised via the BGP-LS session. This
      information, once collected across all BGP routers in the network,
      provides a complete topology view of the network. Many of these
      attributes are not part of the base BGP protocol operations and are
      either configured or provided by other components on the router. This
      information needs to be collected from within the node and advertised
      out via BGP-LS.</t>

      <t>The following sections describe the procedures for the propagation of
      the BGP-LS NLRIs on a BGP router into the BGP-LS session. These
      procedures for propagation of BGP topology information via BGP-LS SHOULD
      be applied only in deployments and use-cases where necessary and SHOULD
      NOT be applied in every BGP deployment when BGP-LS is enabled.
      Implementations MAY provide a configuration option to enable these
      procedures in required deployments.</t>

      <section anchor="NODE-PROCEDURES"
               title="Advertisement of Router's Node Attributes">
        <t>Advertisement of the Node NLRI via BGP-LS by each BGP router in a
        BGP-only network enables the discovery of all the router nodes in the
        topology. The Node NLRI MUST be generated by a BGP router only for
        itself and even when there are no attributes to be advertised along
        with it.</t>

        <t>The Node attributes defined currently related to Segment Routing
        (SR) <xref target="RFC8402"/> have been described in <xref
        target="NODE-ATTR"/> and are to be advertised when SR is enabled. This
        includes:<list style="symbols">
            <t>All SR enabled routers support the default SR algorithm 0 and
            MUST advertise it in the SR Algorithm TLV. Other algorithms
            (including Flexible Algorithm <xref
            target="RFC9350"/>) SHOULD be advertised when
            supported.</t>

            <t>The Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) provisioned on the
            router which is used by BGP Prefix SIDs <xref target="RFC8669"/>
            and other SR control plane protocols on the router MUST be
            advertised. The value for Flags field in the TLV is not defined
            for BGP protocol and MUST be set to 0 by the originator and
            ignored by receivers.</t>

            <t>The Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) provisioned on the
            router which MAY be used by BGP EPE SIDs <xref target="RFC9086"/>
            SHOULD be advertised. The value for Flags field in the TLV is not
            defined for BGP protocol and MUST be set to 0 by the originator
            and ignored by receivers.</t>

            <t>The Node level MSD provides the Node's capabilities for SR SID
            operations and SHOULD be advertised.</t>

            <t>When the router supports SR Flexible Algorithms and is
            provisioned with the Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD), then it
            MUST advertise the same.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The Node Name Attribute SHOULD be advertised when available.</t>

        <t>This document introduces some of the TE concepts into BGP-only
        networks. Provisioning of TE Router-ID with a unique address normally
        associated with a loopback interface on the router enables TE
        use-cases for both IPv4 and IPv6 SHOULD be supported. The BGP
        Router-ID along with the ASN also provides the capability for uniquely
        identifying a BGP router in the network.</t>

        <t>Other Node Attributes applicable to a BGP Router may also be
        included and this document does not describe the exhaustive list.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="LINK-PROCEDURES"
               title="Advertisement of Router's Local Links Attributes">
        <t>Each BGP router in a BGP-only network also advertises its local
        links using the Link NLRIs thru BGP-LS. The Link NLRI for a given link
        between two BGP routers is advertised as uni-directional logical
        "half-link" and its link descriptors allow the correlation between the
        two NLRIs "half-links" originated by the peering routers to describe
        the bi-directional logical link and its attributes on both
        routers.</t>

        <t>The discovery of all the links and their local and remote
        identifiers in a BGP-only network relies on the design that uses EBGP
        sessions over each interconnecting link using the link IP addresses
        (refer <xref target="RFC7938"/>). In this case, a Link NLRI MUST be
        generated by a BGP router for each of its local link regardless of
        whether it has any link attributes to be advertised for it.</t>

        <t>When doing EBGP multi-hop sessions between directly connected BGP
        routers, the underlying link information would need to learn by some
        discovery protocol or provisioning entity. The mechanisms to learn the
        underlying link information for BGP-LS advertisements are outside the
        scope of this document. However, to provide a true link topology
        picture, the advertisement of underlying links is RECOMMENDED for most
        use-cases instead of a single EBGP peering representation of a link
        between the routers using their loopback addresses.</t>

        <t>The Link NLRI represents an adjacency between BGP routers and its
        association with the underlying Layer 3 link. When the underlying
        Layer 3 link or the BGP session on top of it goes down, the Link NLRI
        MUST be withdrawn by the BGP router. The monitoring of links,
        detecting of their failures and notification to BGP may be performed
        using mechanisms like BFD. This enables faster detection of failures
        and verification of the underlying links.</t>

        <t>Advertisement of the Link NLRIs via BGP-LS by each BGP router in a
        BGP-only network enables the discovery of all the active links in the
        topology.</t>

        <t>TE attributes for links have been traditionally associated with
        Link State Routing protocols. However, with the ability to discover
        the link topology via BGP-LS as specified in this document, the TE
        attributes and their principles can also be applied to a network
        running BGP alone. The TE attributes for a link have been described in
        <xref target="LINK-ATTR"/> and MAY be advertised when TE use-cases are
        enabled. This includes:<list style="symbols">
            <t>The maximum bandwidth of a link is its protocol independent
            attribute and SHOULD be advertised.</t>

            <t>TE concepts of Administrative Groups (also known as affinities)
            and Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) MAY be provisioned locally on
            links and then MUST be advertised.</t>

            <t>The BGP base protocol does not operate with link metrics,
            however, a TE metric concept can be introduced in a BGP only
            network as well for TE use-cases. Implementations MAY provide the
            ability to provision TE metric value for a link for BGP use
            including a different default value for it. The TE metric
            attribute SHOULD be advertised for each link when configured and
            its default value is taken as 100. When not advertised for a link,
            implementations who intend to use the TE metric MUST assume the
            value to be 100.</t>

            <t>The delay and loss TE metrics for links are measured via <xref
            target="RFC6374">MPLS Performance Monitoring</xref> and their
            measurement mechanism over a link are independent of the routing
            protocol. The same mechanism MAY be enabled in BGP-only networks
            and their values advertised via BGP-LS.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The Link attributes defined currently related to the Segment
        Routing feature <xref target="RFC9086">BGP EPE</xref> have been
        described in <xref target="LINK-ATTR"/> and are to be advertised when
        SR use-cases are enabled. This includes:<list style="symbols">
            <t>The BGP Peering SIDs provide a functionality similar to
            Adjacency-SID (refer <xref target="RFC8402"/>) in BGP-only
            networks. Implementations SHOULD allocate the BGP Peer-Adjacency
            SID for all its links and the BGP Peer-Node SID for all its peer
            routers. Implementations MAY allocate the BGP Peer-Set SID based
            on local configuration.</t>

            <t>The Link level MSD provides the per link capabilities for SR
            SID operations and SHOULD be advertised when the router links have
            differing capabilities.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The use of Layer 3 bundle links which comprise of multiple layer 2
        member links are often used in BGP networks. When BGP session is
        configured over such a layer 3 link, the link attributes of the
        underlying layer 2 links MAY be advertised individually using the L2
        Bundle Member TLV. The applicable attributes for the L2 links are
        described in <xref target="RFC9085"/>.</t>

        <t>The Link Name Attribute MAY be advertised when available.</t>

        <t>Other Link Attributes applicable to a BGP Router may also be
        included and this document does not describe the exhaustive list.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="PREFIX-PROCEDURES"
               title="Advertisement of Router's Prefix Attributes">
        <t>Advertisement of the Prefix NLRI via BGP-LS may be required only in
        specific use-cases. Since the base BGP protocol along with its
        extensions already signals Prefix reachability via different NLRIs,
        there is no necessity to duplicate the information via BGP-LS session.
        However, for specific use-cases related to SR Traffic Engineering
        (SR-TE), it is required for each router to advertise it's Prefix
        SID(s) (refer <xref target="RFC8402"/>) that can be used to direct
        traffic via specific BGP routers. Advertising such BGP Prefix SID for
        every BGP router provides this key attribute via BGP-LS and avoids the
        requirement for the consumer of the topology information (e.g. a
        controller or local TE process) to tap into other BGP NLRI
        information.</t>

        <t>Advertisement of the Prefix NLRI via BGP-LS MUST be done for its
        locally configured prefixes (e.g. its loopback interface address) and
        when BGP is advertising the BGP Prefix SID (<xref target="RFC8669"/>)
        for it. The advertisement of the Prefix NLRI via BGP-LS for other
        prefixes learnt by the router MAY be done based on the specific
        use-case requirement and the BGP Route Type as described in <xref
        target="BGPRTTYPES"/> indicates the type of route being
        advertised.</t>

        <t>The Prefix attributes defined currently related to <xref
        target="RFC8402">SR</xref> have been described in <xref
        target="PREFIX-ATTR"/> and MAY be advertised when SR is enabled. This
        includes:<list style="symbols">
            <t>The Prefix SID TLV is included with the SID advertised as the
            index to be consistent with the Label-Index TLV of BGP Prefix SID
            attribute. The default algorithm is MUST be set to 0 by the
            originator except in the case where a local prefix is associated
            with a specific SR Algorithm. The flags are defined as the most
            significant 8 bits of the 16 bit field defined for Label-Index TLV
            in <xref target="RFC8669"/>.</t>

            <t>For certain SR-TE uses, the Prefix Metric value MAY be included
            and it is set based on the SR-TE computation based on the
            link-state topology learnt via BGP-LS.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>Other Prefix Attributes applicable may also be included and this
        document does not describe the exhaustive list.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="SRPOL-PROCEDURES"
               title="Advertisement of Router's SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes">
        <t>SR Policies that are setup using SR-TE mechanisms MAY be
        instantiated on a BGP router. One use-case that results in such SR
        Policy instantiation on a BGP router is described later in this
        document in <xref target="BGP-SRTE"/>. Advertising such SR Policy 
        Candidate Paths instantiated for every BGP router as head-end via 
        BGP-LS provides the consumer of the topology information (e.g. a 
        controller or local TE process) a policy view of the BGP fabric as 
        well.</t>

        <t>The procedures for advertisement of the SR Policy Candidate Path
        NLRI via BGP-LS MUST be done only for its locally instantiated SR 
        Policies and as specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"/>.
        Implementation MAY provide configuration options to control the
        specific set of SR Policies that are to be advertised from the local
        node.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="SRV6SID-PROCEDURES"
               title="Advertisement of Router's SRv6 SID Attributes">
        <t>The SRv6 End SID instantiated on a BGP router can be used to 
        signal SRv6 capabilities for the supported services. The advertisement of 
        the SRv6 SID NLRI via BGP-LS may be required on SRv6 capable routers.</t>

        <t>The SRv6 SID attributes have been described in <xref
        target="RFC9514"/> and MAY be advertised when SRv6 is enabled. This
        includes:<list style="symbols">
            <t>The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior defines specific behaviors for the SRv6 SID 
            and must be advertised.</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

    </section>

    <section anchor="USE-CASES" title="Usage of BGP Topology">
      <t>This section describes some of the use-cases for the building of the
      BGP topology information as specified in this document and leveraging it
      for enabling new functionality.</t>

      <section anchor="TOPO-VIEW" title="Topology View for Monitoring">
        <t>The BGP-LS advertisement of the BGP topology as specified in this
        document provides a live topology view of the BGP network for an
        application or controller that is monitoring the network. The topology
        view is from the BGP protocol perspective and includes the underlying
        links as well that aids in network monitoring as well as diagnostics
        use-cases. BGP-LS is the de-facto protocol for northbound propagation
        of network topology related information for most IGP networks and
        extending this capability for BGP-only networks allows existing
        controllers and applications to consume the information with some
        incremental BGP protocol awareness.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="BGP-SRTE" title="SR-TE in BGP Networks">
        <t>The SR-TE use-case for BGP builds on top of functionality specified
        in <xref target="RFC8669"/> and also described in <xref
        target="RFC8670"/>.The BGP SR Prefix SID signaled, provides the basic
        connectivity between all BGP routers using their loopback addresses.
        This provides the basic best-effort paths in the network using the
        base BGP decision process that is unchanged. BGP and other overlay
        routes and services recurse on top of these loopback addresses of the
        egress nodes and the forwarding is done via the BGP SR Prefix SID
        labels in the underlay. While this version of the document focuses on
        the examples with MPLS dataplane instantiation for SR, the same is
        applicable for the IPv6 dataplane instantiation (SRv6) as well.</t>

        <t>SR-TE for BGP provides underlay paths through the network for the
        overlay routes and services with specific SLA requirements and
        use-cases like path disjointness, low latency paths, inclusion or
        exclusion and other TE considerations.</t>

        <t><xref target="RFC9256"/> specifies the SR Policy architecture.
        <xref target="RFC9830"/> and <xref target="RFC9831"/> describes the
        extensions to BGP for signaling of SR Policies from a controller to
        the SR-TE headend BGP router. BGP-LS has been extended to allow
        signaling of the SR Policies from SR-TE head-end to controllers via
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"/> which allows the
        controllers to learn the state of SR Policies instantiated on routers
        in the network. This document completes the missing piece that is
        related to getting the BGP topology information from all the routers
        to a controller as well the local SRTE process on each router for
        their path computation requirements.</t>

        <t>The signaling of SR Polices from controller to SR-TE headend and
        reporting of the state back to the controller can also be done using
        PCEP (<xref target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC8281"/>, <xref
        target="RFC8231"/>). However, the BGP topology learning via BGP-LS
        which is specified in this document is also required for the
        deployments that uses PCEP in the BGP-only network.</t>

        <t>The topology collected via BGP-LS in a BGP-only fabric in a Segment
        Routing deployment comprise of:<list style="symbols">
            <t>The properties of every BGP router node and the Prefix SIDs to
            reach that node.</t>

            <t>The properties of all the links between the BGP routers and the
            Peer-Adjacency-SIDs (and other EPE SIDs) corresponding to them
            that allow directing traffic over specific links and/or to
            specific neighbors.</t>

            <t>The properties and state of the SR Policies instantiatied on
            each of the BGP routers along with their end points, their
            properties and most importantly the Binding SID to steer traffic
            into the SR Policies.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>This topology information allows a computation node to build SR
        Policies for services over the BGP fabric for a given traffic
        engineering objective at any given node.</t>

        <t>The topology of the BGP fabric is advertised to a centralized
        controller or application for use-cases that need a centralized
        computation of SR Policy which can then be signaled to the SR-TE
        head-end node via PCEP or BGP-SRTE. The topology may also be
        distributed to any node in the BGP fabric to be used by its local
        SR-TE process to perform path computation for its own SR Policies for
        use-cases that are addressed by local computation.</t>

        <t>A high level summary of the key topology information advertised via
        BGP-LS by BGP routers can be used for TE computations as follows<list
            style="symbols">
            <t>The BGP SR Prefix SIDs and the BGP EPE Peering Adjacency SIDs
            provide the equivalent of the IGP Prefix and Adjacency SIDs and
            can be used to direct traffic to a specific BGP router and over a
            specific BGP peer session or link respectively. Traffic for the
            BGP SR Prefix SIDs follow the path computed by the BGP decision
            process.</t>

            <t>The TE metric can be used to tailor the choice of specific
            paths in the network for SR-TE.</t>

            <t>The TE administrative group (also known as affinities) and SRLG
            attributes can be configured over links to enable computation of
            paths with inclusion and exclusion of specific links or paths that
            are mutually disjoint.</t>

            <t>The enabling of link delay and loss measurements and their
            advertisements can help monitoring the link quality and carve out
            paths based on latency and other SLA requirements.</t>

            <t>The signaling of the Node and Link MSD allows controllers to
            instantiate SR Policies based on the capability of the
            routers.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>This section attempts to highlight and describe at a high level
        some of the possible SR-TE solutions and use-cases in a BGP-only
        network. The actual SR-TE computation and algorithms are outside the
        scope of this document.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
      State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Node Anchor, Link
      Descriptor and Link Attribute TLVs".</t>

      <t>This document requests the allocation following TLV codepoints:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| TLV Code |             Description                |    Reference  |
|  Point   |                                        |               |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
|   TBD    |   BGP Route Type                       | this document |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t/>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
      affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' section
      of <xref target="RFC4271"/> for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer
      to <xref target="RFC4272"/> and <xref target="RFC6952"/> for analysis of
      security issues for BGP.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC9552"/> defines BGP-LS NLRI to which the extensions 
      defined in this document apply.  Section 10 of <xref target="RFC9552"/> also 
      applies to these extensions.  The procedures defined in this document, by
      themselves, do not affect the BGP-LS security model discussed in
      <xref target="RFC9552"/>.</t>

      <t>The BGP-LS extensions specified in this document enable topology 
      visibility and traffic engineering use-cases within a BGP-only fabric 
      as described in this document. BGP-LS operates within a trusted domain 
      and its security considerations apply to BGP sessions when carrying 
      topology information. The topology information distributed by BGP-LS 
      is expected to be used entirely within this trusted domain which comprises 
      a single AS or multiple ASes/domains within a single provider network. 
      Therefore, precaution is necessary to ensure that the topology information 
      advertised via BGP-LS sessions is limited to nodes in a secure manner 
      within this trusted domain.</t>
      
      <t>Additionally, it should be considered that the export of detailed 
      topology information, as described in this document, constitutes a risk 
      to confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive 
      information about the network. BGP-LS peerings are not automatic and require 
      configuration; thus, it is the responsibility of the network operator 
      to ensure that only trusted nodes (that include both routers and 
      controller applications) within the trusted domain are configured to 
      receive such information.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Bruno Decraene for his review and
      comments on this document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4271.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9552.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8571.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8669.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8814.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9085.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9086.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9104.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9247.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9514.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9350.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy.xml"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9256.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9087.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8231.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8281.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8664.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8670.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9830.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9831.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7938.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4272.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6952.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6374.xml"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
