<?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-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06"
     ipr="trust200902" updates="">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement">IGP Unreachable Prefix
     Announcement</title>

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

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Pribinova Street 10</street>

          <city>Bratislava 81109</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

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

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

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

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

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Brussels</city>

          <code/>

          <region/>

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

        <email>cfilsfil@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
       
    <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="D" surname="Voyer">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
        </postal>

        <email>davoyer@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
       
    <author fullname="Shraddha Hegde" initials="S" surname="Hegde">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Embassy Business Park</street>

          <street/>

          <city>Bangalore, KA</city>

          <region>560093</region>

          <country>India</country>

          <code/>
        </postal>

        <email>shraddha@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Gyan Mishra" initials="G. " surname="Mishra">
      <organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <date year="2025"/>

    <area>Routing Area</area>

    <workgroup>Networking Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword/>

    <abstract>
      
      <t>In the presence of summarization, there is a need to signal loss of
      reachability to an individual prefix covered by the summary. This enables
      fast convergence by steering traffic away from the node which owns the
      prefix and is no longer reachable.</t>
            
      <t>This document describes how to	use the existing protocol mechanisms in IS-IS and 
      OSPF, together with the two new flags, to advertise such prefix reachability loss.</t>

    </abstract>

    <note 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>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>Link-state IGP protocols like IS-IS <xref target="ISO10589"/>, OSPF 
      <xref target="RFC2328"/>, and OSPFV3 <xref target="RFC5340"/> are primarily used to
      distribute routing information between routers belonging to a single
      Autonomous System (AS) and to calculate the reachability for IPv4 or
      IPv6 prefixes advertised by the individual nodes inside the AS. Each
      node advertises the state of its local adjacencies, connected prefixes,
      capabilities, etc. The collection of these states from all the routers
      inside the area form a link-state database (LSDB) that describes the
      topology of the area and holds additional state information about the
      prefixes, router capabilities, etc.</t>

      <t>The growth of networks running a link-state routing protocol results
      in the addition of more state which leads to scalability and convergence
      challenges. The organization of networks into levels/areas and IGP
      domains helps limit the scope of link-state information within certain
      boundaries. However, the state related to prefix reachability often
      requires propagation across a multi-area/level and/or multi-domain IGP
      network. Techniques such as summarization have been used traditionally
      to address the scale challenges associated with advertising prefix state
      outside of the local area/domain. However, this results in suppression
      of the individual prefix state that is useful for triggering
      fast-convergence mechanisms outside of the IGPs - e.g., BGP PIC Edge
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic"/>.</t>  
      
      <t>This document defines two new flags in IS-IS and OSPF.  These flags, together 
      with the existing protocol mechanisms, provide the support for the necessary
      functionality. The functionality being described is called Unreachable 
      Prefix Announcement (UPA).</t>
      
      <t>Similarly, when an egress router needs to be taken out for maintenance,
      the traffic is drained from the node before taking it down. This is typically 
      achieved by setting OL-bit together with using max-metric for all prefixes 
      advertised by the node in IS-IS, or by setting max-metric on all-links and prefixes 
      advertised by the node in OSPF. When prefixes from such node are summarized
      by the ABR/ASBR, nodes outside of the area or domain are unaware of such prefixes 
      becoming unreachable. This document proposes protocol extensions to carry
      information about such prefixes in a backward compatible manner.</t>
      
    </section>

    <section anchor="UPA-IS-IS" title="Supporting UPA in IS-IS">
      
      <t><xref target="RFC5305"/> defines the encoding for advertising IPv4
      prefixes using 4 octets of metric information. Section 4 specifies:</t>

      <t>"If a prefix is advertised with a metric larger then MAX_PATH_METRIC
      (0xFE000000, see paragraph 3.0), this prefix MUST NOT be considered
      during the normal SPF computation. This allows advertisement of a prefix
      for purposes other than building the normal IP routing table."</t>

      <t>Similarly, <xref target="RFC5308"/> defines the encoding for
      advertising IPv6 prefixes using 4 octets of metric information. Section
      2 states:</t>

      <t>"...if a prefix is advertised with a metric larger than
      MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC (0xFE000000), this prefix MUST NOT be considered
      during the normal Shortest Path First (SPF) computation. This will allow
      advertisement of a prefix for purposes other than building the normal
      IPv6 routing table."</t>

      <t>This functionality can be used to advertise a prefix (IPv4 or IPv6)
      in a manner which indicates that reachability has been lost - and to do
      so without requiring all nodes in the network to be upgraded to support
      the functionality.</t>

      <section anchor="UPA-IS-IS-ADV" title="Advertisement of UPA in IS-IS">
        
        <t>Existing nodes in a network that do not suport UPA will not use UPAs 
        during the route calculation, but will continue to flood them. This allows flooding 
        of such advertisements to occur without the need to upgrade all nodes in a network.</t>

        <t>Recognition of the advertisement as UPA is only required on
        routers which have a use case for this information. Area Border
        Routers (ABRs), which would be responsible for propagating UPA
        advertisements into other areas would need to recognize such
        advertisements.</t>
        
        <t>As per the definitions referenced in the preceding section, any 
        prefix advertisement with a metric value greater than 0xFE000000 can
        be used for purposes other than normal routing calculations. Such metric 
        MUST be used when advertising UPA in IS-IS.</t>
        
        <t>UPA in IS-IS is supported for all IS-IS Sub-TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability, e.g., 
        SRv6 Locator <xref target="RFC9352"/>, Extended IP reachability <xref target="RFC5305"/>, 
        MT IP Reach <xref target="RFC5120"/>, IPv6 IP Reach <xref target="RFC5308"/>, 
        MT IPv6 IP Reach <xref target="RFC5120"/>, IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV 
        <xref target="RFC9502"/>, and IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV 
        <xref target="RFC9502"/>.</t>
      
      </section>

      <section anchor="UPA-IS-IS-PROP" title="Propagation of UPA in IS-IS">
           
        <t>IS-IS allows propagation of IP prefixes in both directions between level 1 and 
        level 2. For reachable prefixes this is only done if the prefix is reachable in 
        source level - e.g., the prefix needs to be reachable in level 1 to be propagated 
        to level 2 and vice verse. Such requirement of reachability MUST NOT be applied 
        for UPAs, as they are propagating unreachability.</t>
        
        <t>IS-IS L1/L2 routers may wish to advertise received UPAs into other areas (upwards
        and/or downwards). When propagating UPAs the original metric value
        MUST be preserved. The cost to reach the originator of the received
        UPA MUST NOT be considered when readvertising the UPA.</t>
        
      </section>
      
      </section>
      

     <section anchor="UPA-OSPF" title="Supporting UPA in OSPF">
      
      <t><xref target="RFC2328"/> Appendix B defines the following
      architectural constant for OSPF:</t>

      <t>"LSInfinity The metric value indicating that the destination
      described by an LSA is unreachable. Used in summary-LSAs and
      AS-external-LSAs as an alternative to premature aging (see Section
      14.1). It is defined to be the 24-bit binary value of all ones:
      0xffffff."</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC5340"/> Appendix B states:</t>

      <t>"Architectural constants for the OSPF protocol are defined in
      Appendix B of OSPFV2."</t>

      <t>indicating that these same constants are applicable to OSPFv3.</t>
      
      <t><xref target="RFC2328"/> section 14.1. also describes the usage of 
      LSInfinity as a way to indicate loss of prefix reachability:</t>
      
      <t>"Premature aging can also be used when, for example, one of the
        router's previously advertised external routes is no longer
        reachable.  In this circumstance, the router can flush its AS-
        external-LSA from the routing domain via premature aging. This
        procedure is preferable to the alternative, which is to
        originate a new LSA for the destination specifying a metric of
        LSInfinity."</t> 
        
     <t>In addition, NU-bit is defined for OSPFv3 <xref target="RFC5340"/>. Prefixes having 
     the NU-bit set in their PrefixOptions field SHOULD NOT be included in the routing 
     calculation.</t>
        
      <t>UPA in OSPFv2 is supported for OSPFv2 Summary-LSA <xref target="RFC2328"/>, 
      AS-external-LSAs <xref target="RFC2328"/>, NSSA AS-external LSA <xref target="RFC3101"/>, 
      and OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV <xref target="RFC9502"/>.</t>
      
      <t>UPA in OSPFv3 is supported for Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA <xref target="RFC5340"/>, 
      AS-External-LSA <xref target="RFC5340"/>, NSSA-LSA <xref target="RFC5340"/>,
      E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA <xref target="RFC8362"/>,
      E-AS-External-LSA <xref target="RFC8362"/>, E-Type-7-LSA <xref target="RFC8362"/>, 
      and SRv6 Locator LSA <xref target="RFC9513"/>.</t> 
        
      <section anchor="UPA-OSPF-ADV" title="Advertisement of UPA in OSPF">  
      
      <t>Using the existing mechanism already defined in the standards, as described in 
      previous section, an advertisement of the inter-area or external prefix inside 
      OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 LSA that has the age set to value lower than MaxAge and metric set 
      to LSInfinity MUST be used when advertising UPA.</t>
      
      <t>UPA flooding inside the area follows the existing standard procedures defined 
      by OSPF <xref target="RFC2328"/> and OSPFv3 <xref target="RFC5340"/>.</t>
           
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="UPA-OSPF-PROP" title="Propagation of UPA in OSPF">
      
      <t>OSPF Area Border Routers (ABRs), which would be responsible for propagating 
       UPA advertisements into other areas would need to recognize such advertisements.</t> 
        
       <t>Advertising prefix reachability between OSPF areas assumes prefix reachability 
       in a source area. Such requirement of reachability MUST NOT be applied 
       for UPAs, as they are propagating unreachability.</t>
       
       <t>OSPF ABRs may wish to advertise received UPAs into other connected areas.
       When doing so, the original LSInfinity metric value in UPA MUST be preserved. 
       The cost to reach the originator of the received UPA MUST NOT be considered when 
       readvertising the UPA to connected areas.</t>
       
      </section>
      
      </section>
      
      
    <section anchor="UPA-GEN" title="Generation of the UPA">
    
      <t>UPA MAY be generated by the ABR or ASBR for a prefix that is summarized by the 
      summary address originated by the ABR or ASBR in the following cases:</t>
      
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1">
       <li derivedCounter="1.">
        <t>Reachability of a prefix that was reachable earlier was lost.</t>
       </li>
       
       <li derivedCounter="2.">
           <t>For planned maintenance if the node originating the prefix 
           is signalling the overload state in ISIS, or if the prefix itself is advertised 
           with the protocol specific maximum prefix metric. When the ABR/ASBR does so, 
           it MAY set the UP bit to indicate that.</t>
       </li>
      </ol>
            
      <t>Implementations are free to limit the UPA generation to specific prefixes, e.g. 
      host prefixes, SRv6 locators, or similar. Such filtering is optional and MAY be 
      controlled via configuration.</t>  
      
      <t>The intent of UPA is to provide an event driven signal of the transition of 
      a destination from reachable to unreachable. It is not intended to advertise 
      a persistent state. UPA advertisements SHOULD therefore be withdrawn after 
      some amount of time, that would provides sufficient time for UPA to be 
      flooded network-wide and acted upon by receiving nodes, but limits the presence 
      of UPA in the network. The time the UPA is kept in the network SHOULD also reflect 
      the intended use-case for which the UPA was advertised.</t>
      
      <t>Implementation MAY provide a configuration option to specify the UPA lifetime at 
      the originating ABR or ASBR.</t>
      
      <t>ABR or ASBR MUST withdraw the previously advertised UPA when the reason for which 
      the UPA was generated was lost - e.g. prefix reachability was restored or its metric 
      has changed such that it does not represent the protocol specific maximum prefix 
      metric.</t>
        
      <t>As UPA advertisements in IS-IS are advertised in existing Link State PDUs
      (LSPs) and the unit of flooding in IS-IS is an LSP, it is recommended that, when 
      possible, UPAs are advertised in LSPs dedicated to this type of advertisement.  
      This will minimize the number of LSPs which need to be updated when UPAs are 
      advertised and withdrawn.</t>
        
      <t>In OSPF and OSPFv3, each inter-area and external prefix is advertised in it's 
      own LSA, so the above optimisation does not apply to OSPF.</t>
        
      <t>It is also recommended that implementations limit the number of UPA advertisements 
      which can be originated at a given time.</t>
        
        
    </section>  
    
    <section anchor="UPA-SIGN" title="Signaling UPA">
    
    <t>In IS-IS a prefix can be advertised with metric higher than 0xFE000000, in OSPF
    with metric LSInfinity, or in OSPFv3 with NU-bit set in PrefixOptions, for various 
    reasons. Even though in all cases the treatment of such metric, or NU-bit,  is 
    specified for IS-IS, OSPF and OSPFv3, having an explicit way to signal that
    the prefix was advertised in order to signal unreachability is required to 
    distinguish it from other cases where the prefix with such metric is advertised.</t>
    
    <section anchor="UPA-SIGN-IS-IS" title="Signaling UPA in IS-IS">
    
    <t>Two new bits in the IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability Attribute Flags 
    <xref target="RFC7794 "/> are defined:
     <list style="hanging">
      
      <t>U-Flag: -  Unreachable Prefix Flag (Bit 5). When set, it indicates that the 
      prefix is unreachable due to the unplanned reason.</t>
      
      <t>UP-Flag: -  Unreachable Planned Prefix Flag (Bit 6). When set, it indicates that the 
      prefix is unreachable due to the planned reason, e.g., planned maintenance.</t>
      
      </list></t>
      
      <t>The prefix that is advertised with U-Flag or UP-Flag MUST have the metric
      set to a value larger than 0xFE000000.  If the prefix metric is less
      than or equal 0xFE000000, both of these flags MUST be ignored.</t> 
             
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="UPA-SIGN-OSPF" title="Signaling UPA in OSPF">

    
    <t>A new Prefix Attributes Sub-TLV has been defined in 
     <xref target="I-D.ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags"/> for advertising additional 
     prefix attribute flags in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.</t> 
    
    <t>Two new bits in Prefix Attributes Sub-TLV are defined:
     <list style="hanging">
      
      <t>U-Flag: -  Unreachable Prefix Flag (Bit 0). When set, it indicates that the 
      prefix is unreachable due to the unplanned reason.</t>
      
      <t>UP-Flag: -  Unreachable Planned Prefix Flag (Bit 1). When set, it indicates that the 
      prefix is unreachable due to the planned reason, e.g., planned maintenance.</t>
      
     </list>
    </t> 
    
    <section anchor="UPA-SIGN-OSPFv2" title="Signaling UPA in OSPFv2">
    
     <t>In OSPFv2 the Prefix Attributes Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended 
     Prefix TLV <xref target="RFC7684"/>.</t> 
      
     <t>The prefix that is advertised with U-Flag or UP-Flag MUST have the metric set to
     a value LSInfinity. If the prefix metric is not equal to LSInfinity, both of these 
     flags MUST be ignored. For default algorithm 0 prefixes with U-Flag or UP-Flag, it 
     is therefore REQUIRED to advertise the unreachable prefix in the base OSPFv2 LSA - 
     e.g., OSPFv2 Summary-LSA <xref target="RFC2328"/>, or AS-external-LSAs 
     <xref target="RFC2328"/>, or NSSA AS-external LSA <xref target="RFC3101"/>.</t>
      
        
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="UPA-SIGN-OSPFv3" title="Signaling UPA in OSPFv3">
    
    <t>In OSPFv3 the Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV is defined as a Sub-TLV of the 
    following OSPFv3 TLVs as defined in <xref target="RFC8362"/>:
    <list style="hanging">
    
    <t>Intra-Area Prefix TLV</t>
    
    <t>Inter-Area Prefix TLV</t>
    
    <t>External Prefix TLV</t>
    
    </list></t>
         
    <t>The prefix that is advertised with U-Flag or UP-flag MUST have the metric set to 
    a value LSInfinity. For default algorithm 0 prefixes, the LSInfinity MUST be set 
    in the parent TLV. For IP Algorithm Prefixes <xref target="RFC9502"/>,
    the LSInfinity MUST be set in OSPFv3 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability sub-TLV. 
    If the prefix metric is not equal to LSInfinity, both of these flags MUST be ignored.</t> 
      
    <t>The prefix that is advertised with U-Flag or UP-Flag MUST have the NU-bit set 
    in the PrefixOptions of the parent TLV. If the NU-bit in PrefixOptions of the parent
    TLV is not set, both of these flags MUST be ignored.</t>
            
    </section>
    
    </section>
    
    
    <section anchor="UPA-U-UPA-FLGS"
               title="Treatement of the U-Flag and UP-Flag">

   <t>The setting of the U-Flag or the UP-Flag signals that the prefix is unreachable.
   They constitute the UPA signals. Treatment of these flags on the receiver is optional
   and the usage of them is outside of scope of this document.</t>
                  
    </section>
    
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="UPA-DEPLOY"
               title="Deployment Considerations for UPA">
        
        <t>UPA is not meant to address an area/domain partition. When an area partitions,
        while multiple ABRs advertise the same summary, each of the ABRs can only reach portion
        of the summarized prefix. As a result, depending on which ABR the traffic is using
        to enter a partitioned area, the traffic could be dropped or be delivered to its
        final destination. UPA does not make the problem of an area partition any worse. 
        In case of an area partition each of the ABRs will generate UPAs for the 
        destinations for which the reachability was lost locally. As the UPA propagates to the 
        nodes outside of a partitioned area, it may result in such nodes picking
        an alternative egress node for the traffic, if such alternate egress node exists.
        If such alternate egress node resides outside of a partitioned area, traffic will
        be restored. If such alternate egress node resides in a partitioned area and is 
        covered by the summary, the trafic will be dropped if it enters a partitioned 
        area via the ABR that can not reach the alternate egress node - resulting in 
        similar behavior as without the UPA. Above is similarly applicable to a
        domain partition.</t>
        
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="UPA-RXPROCESS"
               title="Processing of the UPA">
               
    <t>Processing of the received UPAs is optional and SHOULD be controlled by the 
    configuration at the receiver. The receiver itself, based on its configuration, 
    decides what the UPA will be used for and what applications, if any, will be notified 
    when UPA is received.</t>
    
    <t>As an example, UPA may be used to trigger BGP PIC Edge at the receiving router
    <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic"/>.</t> 
    
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      
      <section anchor="UBIT-IS-IS" title="IS-IS Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV">
   
       <t>This document adds two new bits in the "IS-IS Bit Values for Prefix Attribute 
       Flags Sub-TLV" registry:
   
       <list style="hanging">
     
         <t>Bit #: 5</t>

         <t>Description: U-Flag</t>

         <t>Reference: This document (<xref target="UPA-SIGN-IS-IS"/>).</t>
         
         <t>Bit #: 6</t>

         <t>Description: UP-Flag</t>

         <t>Reference: This document (<xref target="UPA-SIGN-IS-IS"/>).</t> 
         
      </list></t>
   
     </section>  
     
     <section anchor="UBIT-OSPF" title="OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Prefix Extended TLV Flag Field">
   
       <t>This document adds two new bits in the "OSPFv2 Prefix Extended TLV Flag Field" 
       and "OSPFv3 Prefix Extended TLV Flag Field" registres:
   
       <list style="hanging">
     
         <t>Bit #: 0</t>

         <t>Description: U-Flag</t>

         <t>Reference: This document (<xref target="UPA-SIGN-OSPF"/>).</t>
         
         <t>Bit #: 1</t>

         <t>Description: UP-Flag</t>

         <t>Reference: This document (<xref target="UPA-SIGN-OSPF"/>).</t> 
         
      </list></t>
      
      </section>
   
    </section>

    <section anchor="SEC_ISIS" title="Security Considerations">
      
      <t>The use of UPAs introduces the possibility that an attacker could
      inject a false, but apparently valid, UPA. However, the risk of this
      occurring is no greater than the risk today of an attacker injecting any
      other type of false advertisement .</t>

      <t>The risks can be reduced by the use of 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="RFC5340"/> and <xref target="RFC4552"/> for
      OSPFv3.</t>
      
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Kamran Raza, Michael MacKenzie
      and Luay Jalil for their contribution and support of the overall solution 
      proposed in this document.</t>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="CONTR" title="Contributors">
    
    <t>The following people contributed to the content of this document and should be 
    considered coauthors:</t>
       
    <contact fullname="Stephane Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski">
      <address>
        <email>slitkows@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </contact>
    
    <contact fullname="Amit Dhamija" initials="A." surname="Dhamija">
      <address>
        <email>amitd@arrcus.com</email>
      </address>
    </contact>
    
    <contact fullname="Gunter Van de Velde" initials="G." surname="Van de Velde">
      <address>
        <email>gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </contact>
        
    <t>The following people contributed to the problem statement and the solution 
    requirement discussion:</t>    
        
    <contact fullname="Aijun Wang" initials="A." surname="Wang">
      <address>
        <email>wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </contact>
    
    <contact fullname="Zhibo Hu" initials="Z." surname="Hu">
      <address>
        <email>huzhibo@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </contact>
    
    </section>

    
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <reference anchor="ISO10589">
        <front>
          <title>Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
          routeing 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>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2328'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4552'?>

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

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5304'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5308'?>

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

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

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7474'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7684'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5120'?>
    
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3101'?>
    
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8362'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7794'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9502'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9513'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9352'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags'?>
 
    
    </references>
    
    <references title="Informative References">
    
    <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic'?>
    
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
