Arrcus, Inc.

keyur@arrcus.com

Arrcus, Inc.

301 Midenhall Way Cary NC 27513 United States of America acee.ietf@gmail.com

shafagh@shafagh.com

Nokia

copernicuslaan 50 Antwerp 2018 Belgium wim.henderickx@nokia.com

RTG lsvr IDR Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on simplified Layer 3 (L3) routing. Furthermore, requirements for operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on BGP as their single routing protocol for both fabric routing and Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This document describes extensions to BGP for use with BGP Link State (BGP-LS) distribution and the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm. In doing this, it allows BGP to be efficiently used as both the underlay protocol and the overlay protocol in MSDCs.

Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at .

Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents () in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

• .  Introduction
  • .  Terminology
  • .  Requirements Language
  • .  BGP Shortest Path First (SPF) Motivation
  • .  Document Overview
• .  Base BGP Protocol Relationship
• .  BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Relationship
• .  BGP SPF Peering Models
  • .  BGP Single-Hop Peering on Network Node Connections
  • .  BGP Peering Between Directly Connected Nodes
  • .  BGP Peering in Route-Reflector or Controller Topology
• .  BGP Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing Protocol Extensions
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF SAFI
    • .  BGP-LS-SPF NLRI TLVs
    • .  BGP-LS Attribute
  • .  Extensions to BGP-LS
    • .  Node NLRI Usage
      • .  BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV
    • .  Link NLRI Usage
      • .  BGP-LS Link NLRI Address Family Link Descriptor TLV
      • .  BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV
    • .  IPv4/IPv6 Prefix NLRI Usage
      • .  BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV
    • .  BGP-LS Attribute Sequence Number TLV
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF End of RIB (EoR) Marker
  • .  BGP Next-Hop Information
• .  Decision Process with the SPF Algorithm
  • .  BGP SPF NLRI Selection
    • .  BGP Self-Originated NLRI
  • .  Dual-Stack Support
  • .  SPF Calculation Based on BGP-LS-SPF NLRI
  • .  IPv4/IPv6 Unicast Address Family Interaction
  • .  NLRI Advertisement
    • .  Link/Prefix Failure Convergence
    • .  Node Failure Convergence
• .  Error Handling
  • .  Processing of BGP-LS-SPF TLVs
  • .  Processing of BGP-LS-SPF NLRIs
  • .  Processing of BGP-LS Attributes
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF Link State Database Synchronization
• .  IANA Considerations
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF Allocation in the SAFI Values Registry
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF Assignments in the BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs Registry
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry
  • .  Assignment in the BGP Error (Notification) Codes Registry
• .  Security Considerations
• . Management Considerations
  • .  Configuration
  • .  Link Metric Configuration
  • .  Unnumbered Link Configuration
  • .  Adjacency End-of-RIB (EOR) Marker Requirement
  • .  backoff-config
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF NLRI Readvertisement Delay
  • .  Operational Data
  • .  BGP-LS-SPF Address Family Session Isolation
• . References
  • .  Normative References
  • .  Informative References
• Acknowledgements
• Contributors
• Authors' Addresses

Introduction Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on simplified Layer 3 (L3) routing. Furthermore, requirements for operational simplicity has led many of these MSDCs to converge on BGP as their single routing protocol for both fabric routing and Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing . This document describes an alternative solution that leverages BGP-LS and the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm used by Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). This document leverages both the BGP protocol and BGP-LS extensions . The relationship as well as the scope of changes are described in Sections and , respectively. The modifications to for BGP SPF described herein only apply to IPv4 and IPv6 as underlay unicast Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs). Operations for any other BGP SAFIs are outside the scope of this document. This solution avails the benefits of both BGP and SPF-based IGPs. These include TCP-based flow-control, no periodic link-state refresh, and completely incremental Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) advertisement. These advantages can reduce the overhead in MSDCs where there is a high degree of Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) load balancing. Additionally, using an SPF-based computation can support fast convergence and the computation of Loop-Free Alternatives (LFAs). The SPF LFA extensions defined in can be similarly applied to BGP SPF calculations. However, the details are specific to implementation and are out of scope for this document. Furthermore, a BGP-based solution lends itself to multiple peering models including those incorporating route reflectors or controllers.

Terminology This specification reuses terms defined in . Additionally, this document introduces the following terms:

BGP SPF Routing Domain:

A set of BGP routers under a single administrative domain that exchange link-state information using the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI and compute routes using BGP SPF, as described herein.

BGP-LS-SPF NLRI:

The BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) that is being advertised in the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI () and is being used for BGP SPF route computation.

Dijkstra Algorithm:

An algorithm for computing the shortest path from a given node in a graph to every other node in the graph.

Prefix NLRI:

In the context of BGP SPF, this term refers to the IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI and/or the IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI.

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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

BGP Shortest Path First (SPF) Motivation Given that already describes how BGP could be used as the sole routing protocol in an MSDC, one might question the motivation for defining an alternative BGP deployment model when a mature solution exists. For both alternatives, BGP offers the operational benefits of a single routing protocol as opposed to the combination of an IGP for the underlay and BGP as the overlay. However, BGP SPF offers some unique advantages above and beyond standard BGP path-vector routing. With BGP SPF, the simple single-hop peering model recommended in is augmented with peering models requiring fewer BGP sessions. A primary advantage is that all BGP speakers in the BGP SPF routing domain have a complete view of the topology. This allows support for ECMP, IP fast-reroute (e.g., Loop-Free Alternatives (LFAs) , Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) , and other routing enhancements without advertisement of additional BGP paths or other extensions. With the BGP SPF Decision Process as defined in , NLRI changes can be disseminated throughout the BGP routing domain much more rapidly. The added advantage of BGP using TCP for reliable transport leverages TCP's inherent flow-control and guaranteed in-order delivery. Another primary advantage is a potential reduction in NLRI advertisement. With standard BGP path-vector routing, a single link failure may impact hundreds or thousands of prefixes and result in the withdrawal or readvertisement of the attendant NLRI. With BGP SPF, only the BGP speakers originating the Link NLRI need to withdraw the corresponding BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI. Additionally, the changed NLRI is advertised immediately as opposed to normal BGP where it is only advertised after the best route selection. These advantages provide NLRI dissemination throughout the BGP SPF routing domain with efficiencies similar to link-state protocols. With controller and route-reflector peering models, BGP SPF advertisement and distributed computation require a minimal number of sessions and copies of the NLRI as only the latest version of the NLRI from the originator is required (see ). Given that verification of whether or not to advertise a link (with a BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI) is done outside of BGP, each BGP speaker only needs as many sessions and copies of the NLRI as required for redundancy. Additionally, a controller could inject topology (i.e., BGP-LS-SPF NLRI) that is learned outside the BGP SPF routing domain. Given that BGP-LS NLRI is already defined , this functionality can be reused for BGP-LS-SPF NLRI. Another advantage of BGP SPF is that both IPv6 and IPv4 can be supported using the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI with the same BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRIs. In many MSDC fabrics, the IPv4 and IPv6 topologies are congruent (refer to ). However, beyond the scope of this document, BGP-LS-SPF NLRI multi-topology extensions could be defined to support separate IPv4, IPv6, unicast, and multicast topologies while sharing the same NLRI. Finally, the BGP SPF topology can be used as an underlay for other BGP SAFIs (using the existing model) and obtain all the above advantages.

Document Overview This document begins with defining the precise relationship that BGP SPF has with the base BGP protocol and defining the BGP Link State (BGP-LS) extensions . The BGP peering models as well as their respective trade-offs are then discussed in . The remaining sections, which make up the bulk of the document, define the protocol enhancements necessary to support BGP SPF including BGP-LS extensions (), replacement of the base BGP Decision Process with the SPF computation (), and BGP SPF error handling ().

Base BGP Protocol Relationship With the exception of the Decision Process, BGP SPF extensions leverage the BGP protocol without change. This includes the BGP protocol Finite State Machine, BGP messages and their encodings, the processing of BGP messages, BGP attributes and path attributes, BGP NLRI encodings, and any error handling defined in , , and . Due to changes in the Decision Process, there are mechanisms and encodings that are no longer applicable. Unless explicitly specified in the context of BGP SPF, all optional path attributes SHOULD NOT be advertised. If received, all path attributes MUST be accepted, validated, and propagated consistently with the BGP protocol , even if not needed by BGP SPF. defines the Decision Process that is used to select routes for subsequent advertisement by applying the policies in the local Policy Information Base (PIB) to the routes stored in its Adj-RIBs-In. The output of the Decision Process is the set of routes that is announced by a BGP speaker to its peers. These selected routes are stored by a BGP speaker in the speaker's Adj-RIBs-Out, according to policy. The BGP SPF extension fundamentally changes the Decision Process, as described herein. Specifically:

1. BGP advertisements are readvertised to neighbors immediately without waiting or dependence on the route computation, as specified in phase 3 of the base BGP Decision Process. Multiple peering models are supported, as specified in .
2. Determining the degree of preference for BGP routes, as described in phase 1 of the base BGP Decision Process, is replaced with the mechanisms in for the SPF calculation.
3. Phase 2 of the base BGP protocol Decision Process is replaced with the SPF algorithm, also known as the Dijkstra algorithm.

BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Relationship describes a mechanism by which link-state and Traffic Engineering (TE) information can be collected from networks and shared with external entities using BGP. This is achieved by defining NLRIs that are advertised using the BGP-LS AFI. The BGP-LS extensions defined in make use of the Decision Process defined in . Rather than reusing the BGP-LS SAFI, the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI () is introduced to ensure backward compatibility for BGP-LS SAFI usage. The "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry is shared between the BGP-LS SAFI and the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI. However, the TLVs defined in this document may not be applicable to the BGP-LS SAFI. As specified in , the presence of unknown or unexpected TLVs is required so that the NLRI or BGP-LS Attribute will not be considered malformed (). The list of BGP-LS TLVs applicable to the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI are described in . By default, the usage of other BGP-LS TLVs or extensions are ignored for the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI. However, this doesn't preclude the usage specification of these TLVs for the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI in future documents.

BGP SPF Peering Models Depending on the topology, scaling, capabilities of the BGP speakers, and redundancy requirements, various peering models are supported. The only requirement is that all BGP speakers in the BGP SPF routing domain adhere to this specification. The choice of the deployment model is up to the operator and their requirements and policies. Deployment model choice is out of scope for this document and is discussed in . The subsections below describe several BGP SPF deployment models. However, this doesn't preclude other deployment models.

BGP Single-Hop Peering on Network Node Connections The simplest peering model is the one where External BGP (EBGP) single-hop sessions are established over direct point-to-point links interconnecting the nodes in the BGP SPF routing domain. Once the single-hop BGP session has been established and the Multiprotocol Extensions Capability with the BGP-LS-SPF AFI/SAFI has been exchanged for the corresponding session, then the link is considered up and available from a BGP SPF perspective, and the corresponding BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is advertised. An End-of-RIB (EoR) marker () for the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI MAY be required from a peer prior to advertising the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI for the corresponding link to that peer. When required, the default is to wait indefinitely for the EoR marker prior to advertising the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI. Refer to . A failure to consistently configure the use of the EoR marker can result in transient micro-loops and dropped traffic due to incomplete forwarding state. If the session goes down, the corresponding Link NLRIs are withdrawn. Topologically, this would be equivalent to the peering model in where there is a BGP session on every link in the data center switch fabric. The content of the Link NLRI is described in .

BGP Peering Between Directly Connected Nodes In this model, BGP speakers peer with all directly connected nodes but the sessions may be between loopback addresses (i.e., two-hop sessions), and the direct connection discovery and liveness detection for the interconnecting links are independent of the BGP protocol. The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol is RECOMMENDED for liveness detection. Usage of other liveness connection mechanisms is outside the scope of this document. Consequently, there is a single BGP session even if there are multiple direct connections between BGP speakers. The BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is advertised as long as a BGP session has been established, the BGP-LS-SPF AFI/SAFI capability has been exchanged , the link is operational as determined using liveness detection mechanisms, and, optionally, the EoR marker has been received as described in . This is much like the previous peering model, except peering is between loopback addresses and the interconnecting links can be unnumbered. However, since there are BGP sessions between every directly connected node in the BGP SPF routing domain, there is a reduction in BGP sessions when there are parallel links between nodes. Hence, this peering model is RECOMMENDED over the single-hop peering model .

BGP Peering in Route-Reflector or Controller Topology In this model, BGP speakers peer solely with one or more route reflectors or controllers. As in the previous model, direct connection discovery and liveness detection for those links in the BGP SPF routing domain are done outside of the BGP protocol. BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is advertised as long as the corresponding link is considered up and available as per the chosen liveness detection mechanism (thus, the BFD protocol is RECOMMENDED). This peering model, known as "sparse peering", allows for fewer BGP sessions and, consequently, fewer instances of the same NLRI received from multiple peers. Ideally, the route reflectors or controller BGP sessions would be on directly connected links to avoid dependence on another routing protocol for session connectivity. However, multi-hop peering is not precluded. The number of BGP sessions is dependent on the redundancy requirements and the stability of the BGP sessions. The controller may use constraints to determine when to advertise BGP-LS-SPF NLRI for BGP-LS peers. For example, a controller may delay advertisement of a link between two peers the until the EoR marker has been received from both BGP peers and the BGP-LS Link NLRI for the link(s) between the two nodes has been received from both BGP peers.

BGP Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing Protocol Extensions

BGP-LS-SPF SAFI This document introduces the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI with a value of 80. The SPF-based Decision Process () applies only to the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI and MUST NOT be used with other combinations of the BGP-LS AFI (16388). In order for two BGP speakers to exchange BGP-LS-SPF NLRI, they MUST exchange the Multiprotocol Extensions Capability to ensure that they are both capable of properly processing such an NLRI. This is done with AFI 16388 / SAFI 80. The BGP-LS-SPF SAFI is used to advertise IPv4 and IPv6 prefix information in a format facilitating an SPF-based Decision Process.

BGP-LS-SPF NLRI TLVs All the TLVs defined for BGP-LS are applicable and can be used with the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI to describe links, nodes, and prefixes comprising BGP SPF Link State Database (LSDB) information. The NLRI and comprising TLVs MUST be encoded as specified in . TLVs specified as mandatory in are considered mandatory for the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI as well. If a mandatory TLV is not present, the NLRI MUST NOT be used in the BGP SPF route calculation. All the other TLVs are considered as optional TLVs. Documents specifying usage of optional TLVs for BGP SPF MUST address backward compatibility.

BGP-LS Attribute The BGP-LS Attribute of the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI uses the exact same format as the BGP-LS AFI . In other words, all the TLVs used in the BGP-LS Attribute of the BGP-LS AFI are applicable and are used for the BGP-LS Attribute of the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI. This attribute is an optional, non-transitive BGP attribute that is used to advertise link, node, and prefix properties and attributes. The BGP-LS Attribute is a set of TLVs. All the TLVs defined for the BGP-LS Attribute are applicable and can be used with the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI to advertise link, node, and prefix properties and attributes. The BGP-LS Attribute may potentially be quite large depending on the amount of link-state information associated with a single BGP-LS-SPF NLRI. The BGP specification mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4096 octets. It is RECOMMENDED that an implementation support in order to accommodate a greater amount of information within the BGP-LS Attribute. BGP speakers MUST ensure that they limit the TLVs included in the BGP-LS Attribute to ensure that a BGP UPDATE message for a single BGP-LS-SPF NLRI does not cross the maximum limit for a BGP message. The determination of the types of TLVs to be included by the BGP speaker originating the attribute is outside the scope of this document. If, due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message, a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST NOT advertise the route to its peer and MAY choose to log an error locally .

Extensions to BGP-LS describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected from IGPs and shared with external components using the BGP protocol. It describes both the definition of the BGP-LS NLRI that advertise links, nodes, and prefixes comprising IGP link-state information and the definition of a BGP path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries link, node, and prefix properties and attributes, such as the link and prefix metric or auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc. This document extends the usage of BGP-LS NLRI for the purpose of BGP SPF calculation via advertisement in the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI. The protocol identifier specified in the Protocol-ID field represents the origin of the advertised NLRI. For Node NLRI and Link NLRI, the specified Protocol-ID MUST be the direct protocol (4). Node or Link NLRI with a Protocol-ID other than the direct protocol is considered malformed. For Prefix NLRI, the specified Protocol-ID MUST be the origin of the prefix. The Local and Remote Node Descriptors for all NLRI MUST include the BGP Router-ID (TLV 516) and the Autonomous System (TLV 512) number . The BGP Confederation Member (TLV 517) is not applicable.

Node NLRI Usage The Node NLRI MUST be advertised unconditionally by all routers in the BGP SPF routing domain.

BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV A BGP-LS Attribute SPF Status TLV of the BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI is defined to indicate the status of the node with respect to the BGP SPF calculation. This is used to rapidly take a node out of service (refer to ) or to indicate that the node is not to be used for transit (i.e., non-local) traffic (refer to ). If the SPF Status TLV is not included with the Node NLRI, the node is considered to be up and is available for transit traffic. A single TLV type is shared by the Node, Link, and Prefix NLRI. The TLV type is 1184. 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 (1184) | Length (1 Octet) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SPF Status | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Node NLRI Attribute Status Values

Value	Description
0	Reserved
1	Node unreachable with respect to BGP SPF
2	Node does not support transit with respect to BGP SPF
3-254	Unassigned
255	Reserved

If a BGP speaker received the Node NLRI but the SPF Status TLV is not received, then any previously received SPF status information is considered as implicitly withdrawn, and the NLRI is propagated to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker receiving a BGP Update containing an SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute with an unknown value SHOULD be advertised to other BGP speakers and MUST ignore the Status TLV with an unknown value in the SPF computation. An implementation MAY log this condition for further analysis. If the SPF Status TLV contains a reserved value (0 or 255), the TLV is considered malformed and is handled as described in .

Link NLRI Usage The criteria for advertisement of Link NLRIs are discussed in . Link NLRI is advertised with unique Local and Remote Node Descriptors dependent on the IP addressing. For IPv4 links, the link's local IPv4 interface address (TLV 259) and remote IPv4 neighbor address (TLV 260) are used. For IPv6 links, the local IPv6 interface address (TLV 261) and remote IPv6 neighbor address (TLV 262) are used (see ). IPv6 links without global IPv6 addresses are considered unnumbered links and are handled as described below. For links supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, both sets of descriptors MAY be included in the same Link NLRI. For unnumbered links, the Link Local/Remote Identifiers (TLV 258) are used. The Link Remote Identifier isn't normally exchanged in BGP, and discovering the Link Remote Identifier is beyond the scope of this document. If the Link Remote Identifier is unknown, a Link Remote Identifier of 0 MUST be advertised. When 0 is advertised and there are parallel unnumbered links between a pair of BGP speakers, there may be transient intervals where the BGP speakers don't agree on which of the parallel unnumbered links are operational. For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that the Link Remote Identifiers be known (e.g., discovered using alternate mechanisms or configured) in the presence of parallel unnumbered links. The link descriptors are described in Table 4 of . Additionally, the Address Family (AF) Link Descriptor TLV is defined to determine whether an unnumbered link can be used in the IPv4 SPF, the IPv6, or both (refer to ). For a link to be used in SPF computation for a given address family, i.e., IPv4 or IPv6, both routers connecting the link MUST have matching addresses (i.e., router interface addresses must be on the same subnet for numbered interfaces, or the Link Local/Remote Identifiers () must match for unnumbered interfaces). The IGP Metric (TLV 1095) MUST be advertised. If a BGP speaker receives a Link NLRI without an IGP Metric attribute TLV, then it MUST consider the received NLRI as malformed and is handled as described in . The BGP SPF metric length is 4 octets. A metric is associated with the output side of each router interface. This metric is configurable by the system administrator. The lower the metric, the more likely the interface is to be used to forward data traffic. One possible default for the metric would be to give each interface a metric of 1 making the SPF metric effectively a hop count. The usage of other link attribute TLVs is beyond the scope of this document.

BGP-LS Link NLRI Address Family Link Descriptor TLV For unnumbered links, the address family cannot be ascertained from the endpoint link descriptors. Hence, the Address Family Link Descriptor TLV SHOULD be included with the Link Local/Remote Identifiers TLV for unnumbered links, so that the link can be used in the respective address family SPF. If the Address Family Link Descriptor TLV is not present for an unnumbered link, the link will not be used in the SPF computation for either address family. If the Address Family Link Descriptor TLV is present for a numbered link, the link descriptor will be ignored. If the Address Family Link Descriptor TLV contains an undefined value (3-254), the link descriptor will be ignored. If the Address Family Link Descriptor TLV contains a reserved value (0 or 255), the TLV is considered malformed and is handled as described in . Note that an unnumbered link can be used for both the IPv4 and IPv6 SPF computation by advertising separate Address Family Link Descriptor TLVs for IPv4 and IPv6. 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 (1185) | Length (1 Octet) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Address Family| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Address Family Values

Value	Description
0	Reserved
1	IPv4 Address Family
2	IPv6 Address Family
3-254	Undefined
255	Reserved

BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV The BGP-LS Attribute SPF Status TLV of the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is defined to indicate the status of the link with respect to the BGP SPF calculation. This is used to expedite convergence for link failures as discussed in . If the SPF Status TLV is not included with the Link NLRI, the link is considered up and available. The SPF status is acted upon with the execution of the next SPF calculation (). A single TLV type is shared by the Node, Link, and Prefix NLRI. The TLV type is 1184. 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 (1184) | Length (1 Octet) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SPF Status | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Link NLRI Attribute Status Values

Value	Description
0	Reserved
1	Link unreachable with respect to BGP SPF
2-254	Unassigned
255	Reserved

If a BGP speaker received the Link NLRI but the SPF Status TLV is not received, then any previously received SPF status information is considered as implicitly withdrawn, and the NLRI is propagated to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker receiving a BGP Update containing an SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute with an unknown value SHOULD be advertised to other BGP speakers and MUST ignore the SPF Status TLV with an unknown value in the SPF computation. An implementation MAY log this information for further analysis. If the SPF Status TLV contains a reserved value (0 or 255), the TLV is considered malformed and is handled as described in .

IPv4/IPv6 Prefix NLRI Usage An IPv4/IPv6 Prefix NLRI is advertised with a Local Node Descriptor and the prefix and length. The Prefix Descriptor field includes IP Reachability Information (TLV 265) as described in . The Prefix Metric (TLV 1155) MUST be advertised to be considered for route calculation. The IGP Route Tag (TLV 1153) MAY be advertised. The usage of other BGP-LS Attribute TLVs is beyond the scope of this document.

BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV A BGP-LS Attribute SPF Status TLV of the BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI is defined to indicate the status of the prefix with respect to the BGP SPF calculation. This is used to expedite convergence for prefix unreachability, as discussed in . If the SPF Status TLV is not included with the Prefix NLRI, the prefix is considered reachable. A single TLV type is shared by the Node, Link, and Prefix NLRI. The TLV type is 1184. 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 (1184) | Length (1 Octet) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SPF Status | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Prefix NLRI Attribute Status Values

Value	Description
0	Reserved
1	Prefix unreachable with respect to BGP SPF
2-254	Unassigned
255	Reserved

If a BGP speaker received the Prefix NLRI but the SPF Status TLV is not received, then any previously received SPF status information is considered as implicitly withdrawn, and the NLRI is propagated to other BGP speakers. A BGP speaker receiving a BGP Update containing an SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute with an unknown value SHOULD be advertised to other BGP speakers and MUST ignore the Status TLV with an unknown value in the SPF computation. An implementation MAY log this information for further analysis. If the SPF Status TLV contains a reserved value (0 or 255), the TLV is considered malformed and is handled as described in .

BGP-LS Attribute Sequence Number TLV A BGP-LS Attribute Sequence Number TLV of the BGP-LS-SPF NLRI types is defined to assure the most recent version of a given NLRI is used in the SPF computation. The Sequence Number TLV is mandatory for BGP-LS-SPF NLRI. The TLV type 1181 has been assigned by IANA. The BGP-LS Attribute Sequence Number TLV contains an 8-octet sequence number. The usage of the Sequence Number TLV is described in . 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 (1181) | Length (8 Octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number (High-Order 32 Bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number (Low-Order 32 Bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Sequence Number: The 64-bit strictly increasing sequence number MUST be incremented for every self-originated version of a BGP-LS-SPF NLRI. BGP speakers implementing this specification MUST use available mechanisms to preserve the sequence number's strictly increasing property for the deployed life of the BGP speaker (including cold restarts). One mechanism for accomplishing this would be to use the high-order 32 bits of the sequence number as a wrap/boot count that is incremented any time the BGP router loses its sequence number state or the low-order 32 bits wrap. When incrementing the sequence number for each self-originated NLRI, the sequence number should be treated as an unsigned 64-bit value. If the lower-order 32-bit value wraps, the higher-order 32-bit value should be incremented and saved in non-volatile storage. If a BGP speaker completely loses its sequence number state (e.g., the BGP speaker hardware is replaced or experiences a cold start), the BGP NLRI selection rules (see ) ensure convergence, albeit not immediately. If the Sequence Number TLV is not received, then the corresponding NLRI is considered as malformed and MUST be handled as described in . An implementation SHOULD log an error for further analysis.

BGP-LS-SPF End of RIB (EoR) Marker The usage of the EoR marker with the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI is somewhat different than the other BGP SAFIs. Reception of the EoR marker MAY optionally be expected prior to advertising a Link NLRI for a given peer.

BGP Next-Hop Information The rules for setting the BGP Next-Hop in the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute for the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI follow the rules in . All BGP peers that support SPF extensions will locally compute the Local-RIB Next-Hop as a result of the SPF process. Hence, the use of the MP_REACH_NLRI Next-Hop as a tiebreaker in the standard BGP path decision processing is not applicable.

Decision Process with the SPF Algorithm The Decision Process described in takes place in three distinct phases. The Phase 1 decision function of the Decision Process is responsible for calculating the degree of preference for each route received from a BGP speaker's peer. The Phase 2 decision function is invoked on completion of the Phase 1 decision function and is responsible for choosing the best route out of all those available for each distinct destination and for installing each chosen route into the Local-RIB. The combination of the Phase 1 and 2 decision functions is characterized as a Path Vector algorithm. The SPF-based Decision Process replaces the BGP Decision Process described in . Since BGP-LS-SPF NLRI always contains the Local Node Descriptor as described in , each NLRI is uniquely originated by a single BGP speaker in the BGP SPF routing domain (the BGP node matching the NLRI's Node Descriptors). Instances of the same NLRI originated by multiple BGP speakers would be indicative of a configuration error or a masquerading attack (refer to ). These selected Node NLRIs and their Link/Prefix NLRIs are used to build a directed graph during the SPF computation as described below. The best routes for BGP prefixes are installed in the RIB as a result of the SPF process. When BGP-LS-SPF NLRI is received, all that is required is to determine whether it is the most recent by examining the Node-ID and sequence number as described in . If the received NLRI has changed, it is advertised to other BGP-LS-SPF peers. If the attributes have changed (other than the sequence number), a BGP SPF calculation is triggered. However, a changed NLRI MAY be advertised immediately to other peers and prior to any SPF calculation. Note that the BGP MinASOriginationIntervalTimer timer is not applicable to the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI. The MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer is applicable with a suggested default of 5 seconds consistent with Internal BGP (IBGP) (refer to ). The scheduling of the SPF calculation, as described in , is an implementation and/or configuration matter. Scheduling MAY be dampened consistent with the SPF Back-Off Delay algorithm specified in . The Phase 3 decision function of the Decision Process is also simplified because under normal SPF operation, a BGP speaker MUST advertise the changed NLRIs to all BGP peers with the BGP-LS-SPF AFI/SAFI and install the changed routes in the GLOBAL-RIB. The only exceptions are unchanged NLRIs or stale NLRIs, i.e., an NLRI received with a less recent (numerically smaller) sequence number.

BGP SPF NLRI Selection For all BGP-LS-SPF NLRIs, the selection rules for Phase 1 of the BGP Decision Process (see ) no longer apply.

1. NLRIs self-originated from directly connected BGP SPF peers are preferred. This condition can be determined by comparing the BGP Identifiers in the received Local Node Descriptor and the BGP OPEN message for an active BGP session. This rule assures that a stale NLRI is updated even if a BGP SPF router loses its sequence number state due to a cold start. Note that once the BGP session goes down, the NLRI received is no longer considered as being from a directly connected BGP SPF peer.
2. Consistent with base BGP , an NLRI received from a peer will always replace the same NLRI received from that peer. Coupled with rule #1, this will ensure that any stale NLRI in the BGP SPF routing domain will be updated.
3. The NLRI with the most recent Sequence Number TLV, i.e., the highest sequence number is selected.
4. The NLRI received from the BGP speaker with the numerically larger BGP Identifier is preferred.

When a BGP speaker completely loses its sequence number state, e.g., due to a cold start, or in the unlikely possibility that a 64-bit sequence number wraps, the BGP routing domain will still converge. This is due to the fact that BGP speakers adjacent to the router always accept self-originated NLRIs from the associated speaker as more recent (rule #1). When a BGP speaker reestablishes a connection with its peers, any existing sessions are taken down and stale NLRIs are replaced. The adjacent BGP speakers update their NLRI advertisements and advertise to their neighbors until the BGP routing domain has converged. The modified SPF Decision Process performs an SPF calculation rooted at the local BGP speaker using the metrics from the Link Attribute IGP Metric (TLV 1095) and the Prefix Attribute Prefix Metric (TLV 1155) . These metrics are considered consistently across the BGP SPF domain. As a result, any other BGP attributes that would influence the BGP Decision Process defined in including ORIGIN, MULTI_EXIT_DISC, and LOCAL_PREF attributes are ignored by the SPF algorithm. The Next Hop in the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute is discussed in . The AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attributes are preserved and used for loop detection . They are ignored during the SPF computation for BGP-LS-SPF NLRIs.

BGP Self-Originated NLRI Nodes, Links, or Prefix NLRIs with Node Descriptors matching the local BGP speaker are considered self-originated. When a self-originated NLRI is received and it doesn't match the local node's NLRI content (including the sequence number), special processing is required.

• If a self-originated NLRI is received and the sequence number is more recent (i.e., greater than the local node's sequence number for the NLRI), the NLRI sequence number is advanced to one greater than the received sequence number, and the NLRI is readvertised to all peers.
• If a self-originated NLRI is received and the sequence number is the same as the local node's sequence number but the attributes differ, the NLRI sequence number is advanced to one greater than the received sequence number, and the NLRI is readvertised to all peers.

The above actions are performed immediately when the first instance of a newer self-originated NLRI is received. In this case, the newer instance is considered to be a stale instance that was advertised by the local node prior to a restart where the NLRI state was lost. However, if subsequent newer self-originated NLRI is received for the same Node, Link, or Prefix NLRI, the readvertisement or withdrawal is delayed by BGP_LS_SPF_SELF_READVERTISEMENT_DELAY (default 5) seconds since it is likely being advertised by a misconfigured or rogue BGP speaker (refer to ).

Dual-Stack Support The SPF-based Decision Process operates on Node, Link, and Prefix NLRIs that support both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. Whether to run a single SPF computation or multiple SPF computations for separate AFs is an implementation and/or policy matter. Normally, IPv4 next-hops are calculated for IPv4 prefixes, and IPv6 next-hops are calculated for IPv6 prefixes.

SPF Calculation Based on BGP-LS-SPF NLRI This section details the BGP-LS-SPF local Routing Information Base (RIB) calculation. The router uses BGP-LS-SPF Node, Link, and Prefix NLRIs to compute routes using the following algorithm. This calculation yields the set of routes associated with the BGP SPF routing domain. A router calculates the shortest-path tree using itself as the root. Optimizations to the BGP-LS-SPF algorithm are possible but MUST yield the same set of routes. The algorithm below supports ECMP routes. Weighted Unequal-Cost Multipath (UCMP) routes are out of scope. The following abstract data structures are defined in order to specify the algorithm.

Local Route Information Base (Local-RIB):

A routing table that contains reachability information (i.e., next-hops) for all prefixes (both IPv4 and IPv6) as well as BGP-LS-SPF node reachability. Implementations may choose to implement this with separate RIBs for each address family and/or separate RIBs for prefix and node reachability.

Global Routing Information Base (GLOBAL-RIB):

The RIB containing the current routes that are installed in the router's forwarding plane. This is commonly referred to in networking parlance as "the RIB".

Link State Database (LSDB):

A database of BGP-LS-SPF NLRIs that facilitate access to all Node, Link, and Prefix NLRIs.

Candidate List (CAN-LIST):

A list of candidate Node NLRIs used during the BGP SPF calculation. The list is sorted by the cost to reach the Node NLRI, with the Node NLRI that has the lowest reachability cost at the head of the list. This facilitates the execution of the Dijkstra algorithm, where the shortest paths between the local node and other nodes in the graph are computed. The CAN-LIST is typically implemented as a heap but other data structures have been used.

The Dijkstra algorithm consists of the steps below:

1. The current Local-RIB is invalidated, and the CAN-LIST is initialized to be empty. The Local-RIB is rebuilt during the course of the SPF computation. The existing routing entries are preserved for comparison to determine changes that need to be made to the GLOBAL-RIB in Step 6. These routes are referred to as "stale routes".
2. The cost of the Local-RIB Node route entry for the computing router is set to 0. The computing router's Node NLRI is added to the CAN-LIST (which was previously initialized to be empty in Step 1). The next-hop list is set to the internal loopback next-hop.
3. The Node NLRI with the lowest cost is removed from the CAN-LIST for processing. If the BGP-LS Attribute includes an SPF Status TLV (refer to ) indicating the node is unreachable, the Node NLRI is ignored and the next lowest-cost Node NLRI is selected from the CAN-LIST. The Node corresponding to this NLRI is referred to as the "Current-Node". If the CAN-LIST list is empty, the SPF calculation has completed and the algorithm proceeds to Step 6.
4. All the Prefix NLRIs with the same Local Node Descriptors as the Current-Node are considered for installation. The next-hop(s) for these Prefix NLRIs are inherited from the Current-Node. If the Current-Node is for the local BGP router, the next-hop for the prefix is a direct next-hop. The cost for each prefix is the metric advertised in the Prefix Attribute Prefix Metric (TLV 1155) added to the cost to reach the Current-Node. The following is done for each Prefix NLRI (referred to as the "Current-Prefix"):
   • If the BGP-LS Prefix Attribute includes an SPF Status TLV indicating the prefix is unreachable, the Current-Prefix is considered unreachable, and the next Prefix NLRI is examined in Step 4.
   • If the Current-Prefix's corresponding prefix is in the Local-RIB and the Local-RIB metric is less than the Current-Prefix's metric, the Current-Prefix does not contribute to the route, and the next Prefix NLRI is examined in Step 4.
   • If the Current-Prefix's corresponding prefix is not in the Local-RIB, the prefix is installed with the Current-Node's next-hops installed as the Local-RIB route's next-hops. The Local-RIB route metric is set to the sum of the cost for Current-Node and the Current-Prefix's metric. If the IGP Route Tag (TLV 1153) is included in the Current-Prefix's NLRI Attribute, the tag(s) is installed in the current Local-RIB route's tag(s).
   • If the Current-Prefix's corresponding prefix is in the Local-RIB and the cost is less than the Local-RIB route's metric, the prefix is installed with the Current-Node's next-hops, which replace the Local-RIB route's next-hops and the metric being updated, and any route tags are removed. If the IGP Route Tag (TLV 1153) is included in the Current-Prefix's NLRI Attribute, the tag(s) is installed in the current Local-RIB route's tag(s).
   • If the Current-Prefix's corresponding prefix is in the Local-RIB and the cost is the same as the Local-RIB route's metric, the Current-Node's next-hops are merged with the Local-RIB route's next-hops. The algorithm below supports ECMP routes. Some platforms or implementations may have limits on the number of ECMP routes that can be supported. The setting or identification of any limitations is outside the scope if this document. Weighted UCMP routes are out of scope as well.
5. All the Link NLRIs with the same Node Identifiers as the Current-Node are considered for installation. Each link is examined and referred to as the "Current-Link" in the following text. The cost of the Current-Link is the advertised IGP Metric (TLV 1095) from the Link NLRI BGP-LS attribute added to the cost to reach the Current-Node. If the Current-Node is for the local BGP router, the next-hop for the link is a direct next-hop pointing to the corresponding local interface. For any other Current-Node, the next-hop(s) for the Current-Link is inherited from the Current-Node. The following is done for each link:
   1. If the Current-Link's NLRI attribute includes an SPF Status TLV indicating the link is down, the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is considered down, and the next link for the Current-Node is examined in Step 5.
   2. If the Current-Node NLRI attributes include the SPF Status TLV (refer to ) and the status indicates that the Node doesn't support transit, the next link for the Current-Node is processed in Step 5.
   3. The Current-Link's Remote Node NLRI is accessed (i.e., the Node NLRI with the same Node Identifiers as the Current-Link's Remote Node Descriptors). If it exists, it is referred to as the "Remote-Node" and the algorithm proceeds as follows:
      • If the Remote-Node's NLRI attribute includes an SPF Status TLV indicating the node is unreachable, the next link for the Current-Node is examined in Step 5.
      • All the Link NLRIs corresponding to the Remote-Node are searched for a Link NLRI pointing to the Current-Node. Each Remote-Node's Link NLRI (referred to as the Remote-Link) is examined for Remote Node Descriptors matching the Current-Node and Link Descriptors matching the Current-Link.
        • For IPv4/IPv6 numbered Link Descriptors to match during the IPv4 SPF computation, the Current-Link's IP4/IPv6 interface address link descriptor MUST match the Remote-Link IPv4/IPv6 neighbor address link descriptor, and the Current-Link's IPv4/IPv6 neighbor address MUST match the Remote-Link's IPv4/IPv6 interface address.
        • For unnumbered links to match during the IPv4 or IPv6 SPF computation, the Current-Link and Remote-Link's Address Family Link Descriptor TLV must match the address family of the IPv4 or IPv6 SPF computation, the Current-Link's Remote Identifier MUST match the Remote-Link's Local Identifier, and the Current-Link's Remote Identifier MUST match the Remote-Link's Local Identifier. Since the Link's Remote Identifier may not be known, a value of 0 is considered a wildcard and will match any Current or Remote Link's Local Identifier (see TLV 258 ). Address Family Link Descriptor TLVs for multiple address families may be advertised so that an unnumbered link can be used in the SPF computation for multiple address families.
        If these conditions are satisfied for one of the Remote-Node's links, the bidirectional connectivity check succeeds and the Remote-Node may be processed further. The Remote-Node's Link NLRI providing bidirectional connectivity is referred to as the Remote-Link. If no Remote-Link is found, the next link for the Current-Node is examined in Step 5.
      • If the Remote-Link NLRI attribute includes an SPF Status TLV indicating the link is down, the Remote-Link NLRI is considered down, and the next link for the Current-Node is examined in Step 5.
      • If the Remote-Node is not on the CAN-LIST, it is inserted based on the cost. The Remote Node's cost is the cost of the Current-Node added to the Current-Link's IGP Metric (TLV 1095). The next-hop(s) for the Remote-Node is inherited from the Current-Link.
      • If the Remote-Node NLRI is already on the CAN-LIST with a higher cost, it must be removed and reinserted with the Remote-Node cost based on the Current-Link (as calculated in the previous step). The next-hop(s) for the Remote-Node is inherited from the Current-Link.
      • If the Remote-Node NLRI is already on the CAN-LIST with the same cost, it need not be reinserted on the CAN-LIST. However, the Current-Link's next-hop(s) must be merged into the current set of next-hops for the Remote-Node.
      • If the Remote-Node NLRI is already on the CAN-LIST with a lower cost, it need not be reinserted on the CAN-LIST.
   4. Return to Step 3 to process the next lowest-cost Node NLRI on the CAN-LIST.
6. The Local-RIB is examined and changes (adds, deletes, and modifications) are installed into the GLOBAL-RIB. For each route in the Local-RIB:
   • If the route was added during the current BGP SPF computation, install the route into the GLOBAL-RIB.
   • If the route was modified during the current BGP SPF computation (e.g., metric, tags, or next-hops), update the route in the GLOBAL-RIB.
   • If the route was not installed during the current BGP SPF computation, remove the route from the GLOBAL-RIB.

IPv4/IPv6 Unicast Address Family Interaction While the BGP-LS-SPF address family and the BGP unicast address families may install routes into the routing tables of the same device, they operate independently (i.e., "ships-in-the-night" mode). There is no implicit route redistribution between the BGP-LS-SPF address family and the BGP unicast address families. It is RECOMMENDED that BGP-LS-SPF IPv4/IPv6 route computation and installation be given scheduling priority by default over other BGP address families as the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI is considered an underlay SAFI.

NLRI Advertisement

Link/Prefix Failure Convergence A local failure prevents a link from being used in the SPF calculation due to the IGP bidirectional connectivity requirement. Consequently, local link failures SHOULD always be communicated as quickly as possible and given priority over other categories of changes to ensure expeditious propagation and optimal convergence. According to standard BGP procedures, the link would continue to be used until the last copy of the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is withdrawn. In order to avoid this delay, the originator of the Link NLRI SHOULD advertise a more recent version with an increased Sequence Number TLV for the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI including the SPF Status TLV (refer to ) indicating the link is down with respect to BGP SPF. The configurable LinkStatusDownAdvertise timer controls the interval that the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is advertised with SPF Status indicating the link is down prior to withdrawal. If the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI is advertised with the SPF Status TLV included in the BGP-LS Attribute, and the link becomes available in that period, the originator of the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI MUST advertise a more recent version of the BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI without the SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Link Attribute. The suggested default value for the LinkStatusDownAdvertise timer is 2 seconds. Similarly, when a prefix becomes unreachable, a more recent version of the BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI SHOULD be advertised with the SPF Status TLV (refer to ) to indicate that the prefix is unreachable in the BGP-LS Prefix Attributes, and the prefix will be considered unreachable with respect to BGP SPF. The configurable PrefixStatusDownAdvertise timer controls the interval that the BGP-LS-Prefix NLRI is advertised with SPF Status indicating the prefix is unreachable prior to withdrawal. If the BGP-LS-SPF Prefix has been advertised with the SPF Status TLV and the prefix becomes reachable in that period, the originator of the BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI MUST advertise a more recent version of the BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI without the SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Prefix Attributes. The suggested default value for the PrefixStatusDownAdvertise timer is 2 seconds.

Node Failure Convergence By default, all the NLRIs advertised by a node are withdrawn when a session failure is detected . If fast failure detection such as BFD is utilized, and the node is on the fastest converging path, the most recent versions of BGP-LS-SPF NLRI will be withdrawn. This may result in older versions of NLRIs received from one or more peers on a different path(s) in the LSDB until they are withdrawn. These stale NLRIs will not delay convergence since the adjacent nodes detect the link failure and advertise a more recent NLRI indicating the link is down with respect to BGP SPF (refer to ) and the bidirectional connectivity check fails during the BGP SPF calculation (refer to ).

Error Handling This section describes error-handling actions, as described in , that are specific to BGP-LS-SPF SAFI BGP UPDATE message processing.

Processing of BGP-LS-SPF TLVs When a BGP speaker receives a BGP Update containing a malformed Node NLRI SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute , the corresponding Node NLRI is considered malformed and MUST be handled as 'treat-as-withdraw'. An implementation SHOULD log an error (subject to rate limiting) for further analysis. When a BGP speaker receives a BGP Update containing a malformed Link NLRI SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute , the corresponding Link NLRI is considered malformed and MUST be handled as 'treat-as-withdraw'. An implementation SHOULD log an error (subject to rate limiting) for further analysis. When a BGP speaker receives a BGP Update containing a malformed Address Family Link Descriptor TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute , the corresponding Link NLRI is considered malformed and MUST be handled as 'treat-as-withdraw'. An implementation SHOULD log an error (subject to rate limiting) for further analysis. When a BGP speaker receives a BGP Update containing a malformed Prefix NLRI SPF Status TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute , the corresponding Prefix NLRI is considered malformed and MUST be handled as 'treat-as-withdraw'. An implementation SHOULD log an error (subject to rate limiting) for further analysis. When a BGP speaker receives a BGP Update containing a malformed BGP-LS Attribute TE and IGP Metric TLV, the corresponding NLRI is considered malformed and MUST be handled as 'treat-as-withdraw' . An implementation SHOULD log an error (subject to rate limiting) for further analysis. The BGP-LS Attribute consists of Node attribute TLVs, Link attribute TLVs, and Prefix attribute TLVs. Node attribute TLVs and their error-handling rules are either defined in or derived from and . If a BGP speaker receives a BGP-LS Attribute that is considered malformed based on these error-handling rules, then it MUST consider the received NLRI as malformed, and the receiving BGP speaker MUST handle such a malformed NLRI as 'treat-as-withdraw' . Node Descriptor TLVs and their error-handling rules are defined in . Node Attribute TLVs and their error-handling rules are either defined in or derived from and . Link Descriptor TLVs and their error-handling rules are defined in . Link Attribute TLVs and their error-handling rules are either defined in or derived from and . Prefix Descriptor TLVs and their error-handling rules are defined in . Prefix Attribute TLVs and their error-handling rules are either defined in or derived from and . If a BGP speaker receives NLRI with a Node Descriptor TLV, Link Descriptor TLV, or Prefix Descriptor TLV that is considered malformed based on error handling rules defined in the above references, then it MUST consider the received NLRI as malformed, and the receiving BGP speaker MUST handle such a malformed NLRI as 'treat-as-withdraw' . When a BGP speaker receives a BGP Update that does not contain any BGP-LS Attributes, it is most likely an indication of 'Attribute Discard' fault handling, and the BGP speaker SHOULD preserve and propagate the BGP-LS-SPF NLRI as described in . However, NLRIs without the BGP-LS Attribute MUST NOT be used in the SPF calculation (). How this is accomplished is an implementation matter, but one way would be for these NLRIs not to be returned in LSDB lookups.

Processing of BGP-LS-SPF NLRIs A BGP speaker supporting the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI MUST perform the syntactic validation checks of the BGP-LS-SPF NLRI listed in to determine if it is malformed.

Processing of BGP-LS Attributes A BGP speaker supporting the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI MUST perform the syntactic validation checks of the BGP-LS Attribute listed in to determine if it is malformed. An implementation SHOULD log an error for further analysis for problems detected during syntax validation.

BGP-LS-SPF Link State Database Synchronization While uncommon, there may be situations where the LSDBs of two BGP speakers support the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI lose synchronization. In these situations, the BGP session MUST be reset unless other means of resynchronization are used (beyond the scope of this document). When the session is reset, the BGP speaker MUST send a NOTIFICATION message with the BGP error code "Loss of LSDB Synchronization" as described in . The mechanisms to detect loss of synchronization are beyond the scope of this document.

IANA Considerations

BGP-LS-SPF Allocation in the SAFI Values Registry IANA has assigned value 80 for BGP-LS-SPF from the First Come First Served range and listed this document as a reference in the "SAFI Values" registry within the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" registry group.

BGP-LS-SPF Assignments in the BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs Registry IANA has assigned six TLVs for BGP-LS-SPF NLRI in the "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry. Supported TLV types include Sequence Number, SPF Status, and Address Family Link Descriptor. Deprecated TLV types include SPF Capability, IPv4 Link Prefix Length, and IPv6 Link Prefix Length. NLRI Attribute TLVs

TLV Code Point	Description	Reference
1181	Sequence Number	of RFC 9815
1184	SPF Status	Sections , , and of RFC 9815
1185	Address Family Link Descriptor	of RFC 9815

The early allocation assignments for the TLV types SPF Capability (1180), IPv4 Link Prefix Length (1182), and IPv6 Link Prefix Length (1183) are no longer required and have been deprecated.

BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry IANA has created the "BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values" registry for status values within the "BGP Shortest Path First (BGP SPF)" registry group. Initial values for this registry are provided below. Future assignments are to be made using the Expert Review registration policy with guidance for designated experts as per . BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry Assignments

Values	Description
0	Reserved
1	Node unreachable with respect to BGP SPF
2	Node does not support transit traffic with respect to BGP SPF
3-254	Unassigned
255	Reserved

BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry IANA has created the "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values" registry for status values within the BGP Shortest Path First (BGP SPF)" registry group. Initial values for this registry are provided below. Future assignments are to be made using the IETF Review registration policy . BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry Assignments

Value	Description
0	Reserved
1	Link unreachable with respect to BGP SPF
2-254	Unassigned
255	Reserved

BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry IANA has created the "BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values" registry for status values within the "BGP Shortest Path First (BGP SPF)" registry group. Initial values for this registry are provided below. Future assignments are to be made using the IETF Review registration policy . BGP-LS-SPF Prefix NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV Values Registry Assignments

Value	Description
0	Reserved
1	Prefix unreachable with respect to BGP SPF
2-254	Unassigned
255	Reserved

Assignment in the BGP Error (Notification) Codes Registry IANA has assigned value 9 for Loss of LSDB Synchronization in the "BGP Error (Notification) Codes" registry within the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry group.

Security Considerations This document defines a BGP SAFI, i.e., the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI. This document does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the BGP protocol . The security considerations discussed in apply to the BGP SPF functionality as well. The analysis of the security issues for BGP mentioned in and also applies to this document. The threats and security considerations are similar to the BGP IPv4 unicast SAFI and IPv6 unicast SAFI when utilized in similar deployments, e.g., . The analysis of generic threats to routing protocols in is also worth noting. As the modifications for BGP SPF described in this document apply to IPv4 unicast and IPv6 unicast as underlay SAFIs in a single BGP SPF routing domain, the BGP security solutions described in and are out of scope as they are meant to apply for inter-domain BGP, where multiple BGP routing domains are typically involved. The BGP-LS-SPF SAFI NLRIs described in this document are typically advertised between EBGP or IBGP speakers under a single administrative domain. The BGP-LS-SPF SAFI and associated BGP SPF processing inherit the encodings from BGP-LS , and consequently, inherit the security considerations for BGP-LS associated with these encodings. Additionally, given that BGP SPF processing is used to install IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routes, the BGP SPF processing is vulnerable to attacks to the routing control plane that aren't applicable to BGP-LS. One notable Denial-of-Service attack would be to include malformed BGP attributes in a replicated BGP Update, causing the receiving peer to treat the advertised BGP-LS-SPF to a withdrawal . In order to mitigate the risk of peering with BGP speakers masquerading as legitimate authorized BGP speakers, it is RECOMMENDED that the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) be used to authenticate BGP sessions. If an authorized BGP peer is compromised, that BGP peer could advertise a modified Node, Link, or Prefix NLRI that results in misrouting, repeating origination of NLRI, and/or excessive SPF calculations. When a BGP speaker detects that its self-originated NLRI is being originated by another BGP speaker, an appropriate error SHOULD be logged so that the operator can take corrective action. This exposure is similar to other BGP AFI/SAFIs.

Management Considerations This section includes unique management considerations for the BGP-LS-SPF address family.

Configuration All routers in the BGP SPF routing domain are under a single administrative domain allowing for consistent configuration.

Link Metric Configuration For loopback prefixes, it is RECOMMENDED that the metric be 0. For non-loopback prefixes, the setting of the metric is a local matter and beyond the scope of this document. Algorithms that set the metric inversely to the link speed in some IGP implementations MAY be supported. However, the details of how the metric is computed are beyond the scope of this document. Within a BGP SPF routing domain, the IGP metrics for all advertised links SHOULD be configured or defaulted consistently. For example, if a default metric is used for one router's links, then a similar metric should be used for all router's links. Similarly, if the link metric is derived from using the inverse of the link bandwidth on one router, then this SHOULD be done for all routers, and the same reference bandwidth SHOULD be used to derive the inversely proportional metric. Failure to do so will result in incorrect routing based on the link metric.

Unnumbered Link Configuration When parallel unnumbered links between BGP SPF routers are included in the BGP SPF routing domain and the Remote Link Identifiers aren't readily discovered, it is RECOMMENDED that the Remote Link Identifiers be configured so that precise Link NLRI matching can be done.

Adjacency End-of-RIB (EOR) Marker Requirement Depending on the peering model, topology, and convergence requirements, an EoR marker () for the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI MAY be required from the peer prior to advertising a BGP-LS Link NLRI for the peer. If configuration is supported, this MUST be configurable at the BGP SPF instance level and MUST be configured consistently throughout the BGP SPF routing domain. When this configuration is provided, the default MUST be to wait indefinitely prior to advertising a BGP-LS Link NLRI. Configuration of a timer specifying the maximum time to wait prior to advertisement MAY be provided.

backoff-config In addition to the configuration of the BGP-LS-SPF address family, implementations SHOULD support "Shortest Path First (SPF) Back-Off Delay Algorithm for Link-State IGPs" . If supported, configuration of the INITIAL_SPF_DELAY, SHORT_SPF_DELAY, LONG_SPF_DELAY, TIME_TO_LEARN, and HOLDDOWN_INTERVAL MUST be supported . recommends consistent configuration of these values throughout the IGP routing domain, and this also applies to the BGP SPF routing domain.

BGP-LS-SPF NLRI Readvertisement Delay The configuration parameter that specifies the delay for readvertising a more recent instance of a self-originated NLRI when received more than once in succession is BGP_LS_SPF_SELF_READVERTISEMENT_DELAY. The default is 5 seconds.

Operational Data In order to troubleshoot SPF issues, implementations SHOULD support an SPF log including entries for previous SPF computations. Each SPF log entry would include the BGP-LS-SPF NLRI SPF triggering the SPF, SPF scheduled time, SPF start time, and SPF end time. Since the size of the log is finite, implementations SHOULD also maintain counters for the total number of SPF computations and the total number of SPF triggering events. Additionally, troubleshooting should be available for SPF scheduling and back-off , the current SPF back-off state, the remaining time-to-learn, the remaining hold-down interval, the last trigger event time, the last SPF time, and the next SPF time.

BGP-LS-SPF Address Family Session Isolation In common deployment scenarios, the unicast routes installed during the BGP-LS-SPF AFI/SAFI computation serve as the underlay for other BGP AFI/SAFIs. To avoid errors encountered in other AFI/SAFIs from impacting the BGP-LS-SPF AFI/SAFI or vice versa, isolation mechanisms such as separate BGP instances or separate BGP sessions (e.g., using different addresses for peering) for BGP-LS-SPF information distribution SHOULD be used.

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This memo documents version 2 of the OSPF protocol. OSPF is a link- state routing protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document enhances the routing extensions required to support MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE). [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol. The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced. BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths. This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, L3VPN, etc.). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes an extension to the IS-IS protocol to add operational capabilities that allow for ease of management and control over IP prefix distribution within an IS-IS domain. This document enhances the IS-IS protocol by extending the information that an Intermediate System (IS) router can place in Link State Protocol (LSP) Data Units for policy use. This extension will provide operators with a mechanism to control IP prefix distribution throughout multi-level IS-IS domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support Traffic Engineering (TE). This document extends the IS-IS protocol by specifying new information that an Intermediate System (router) can place in Link State Protocol Data Units (LSP). This information describes additional details regarding the state of the network that are useful for traffic engineering computations. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. It operates independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO), which obsoletes the TCP MD5 Signature option of RFC 2385 (TCP MD5). TCP-AO specifies the use of stronger Message Authentication Codes (MACs), protects against replays even for long-lived TCP connections, and provides more details on the association of security with TCP connections than TCP MD5. TCP-AO is compatible with either a static Master Key Tuple (MKT) configuration or an external, out-of-band MKT management mechanism; in either case, TCP-AO also protects connections when using the same MKT across repeated instances of a connection, using traffic keys derived from the MKT, and coordinates MKT changes between endpoints. The result is intended to support current infrastructure uses of TCP MD5, such as to protect long-lived connections (as used, e.g., in BGP and LDP), and to support a larger set of MACs with minimal other system and operational changes. TCP-AO uses a different option identifier than TCP MD5, even though TCP-AO and TCP MD5 are never permitted to be used simultaneously. TCP-AO supports IPv6, and is fully compatible with the proposed requirements for the replacement of TCP MD5. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies a method for exchanging IPv6 traffic engineering information using the IS-IS routing protocol. This information enables routers in an IS-IS network to calculate traffic-engineered routes using IPv6 addresses. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Autonomous System number is encoded as a two-octet entity in the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities. This document obsoletes RFC 4893 and updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK] To help reduce well-known threats against BGP including prefix mis- announcing and monkey-in-the-middle attacks, one of the security requirements is the ability to validate the origination Autonomous System (AS) of BGP routes. More specifically, one needs to validate that the AS number claiming to originate an address prefix (as derived from the AS_PATH attribute of the BGP route) is in fact authorized by the prefix holder to do so. This document describes a simple validation mechanism to partially satisfy this requirement. [STANDARDS-TRACK] According to the base BGP specification, a BGP speaker that receives an UPDATE message containing a malformed attribute is required to reset the session over which the offending attribute was received. This behavior is undesirable because a session reset would impact not only routes with the offending attribute but also other valid routes exchanged over the session. This document partially revises the error handling for UPDATE messages and provides guidelines for the authors of documents defining new attributes. Finally, it revises the error handling procedures for a number of existing attributes. This document updates error handling for RFCs 1997, 4271, 4360, 4456, 4760, 5543, 5701, and 6368. Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry. This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. This document describes BGPsec, an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that provides security for the path of Autonomous Systems (ASes) through which a BGP UPDATE message passes. BGPsec is implemented via an optional non-transitive BGP path attribute that carries digital signatures produced by each AS that propagates the UPDATE message. The digital signatures provide confidence that every AS on the path of ASes listed in the UPDATE message has explicitly authorized the advertisement of the route. This document defines a standard algorithm to temporarily postpone or "back off" link-state IGP Shortest Path First (SPF) computations. This reduces the computational load and churn on IGP nodes when multiple temporally close network events trigger multiple SPF computations. Having one standard algorithm improves interoperability by reducing the probability and/or duration of transient forwarding loops during the IGP convergence when the IGP reacts to multiple temporally close IGP events. The BGP specification (RFC 4271) mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4,096 octets. As BGP is extended to support new Address Family Identifiers (AFIs), Subsequent AFIs (SAFIs), and other features, there is a need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4,096 octets. This document updates the BGP specification by extending the maximum message size from 4,096 octets to 65,535 octets for all messages except for OPEN and KEEPALIVE messages. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with a list of segment identifiers (SIDs). A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. SR segments allow steering a flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. This document describes an extension to Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) for advertisement of BGP Peering Segments along with their BGP peering node information so that efficient BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) policies and strategies can be computed based on Segment Routing. In many environments, a component external to a network is called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and the current state of the connections within the network, including Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network. This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected from networks and shared with external components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism applies to physical and virtual (e.g., tunnel) IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control. Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs). This document obsoletes RFC 7752 by completely replacing that document. It makes some small changes and clarifications to the previous specification. This document also obsoletes RFC 9029 by incorporating the updates that it made to RFC 7752. Informative References Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, was originally designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms internal to BGP that protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior. This document discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. This document does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system routing protocol designed for TCP/IP internets. Typically, all BGP speakers within a single AS must be fully meshed so that any external routing information must be re-distributed to all other routers within that Autonomous System (AS). This represents a serious scaling problem that has been well documented with several alternatives proposed. This document describes the use and design of a method known as "route reflection" to alleviate the need for "full mesh" Internal BGP (IBGP). This document obsoletes RFC 2796 and RFC 1966. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm individual users or network operations as a whole. This document provides a description and a summary of generic threats that affect routing protocols in general. This work describes threats, including threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and threat consequences, as well as a breakdown of routing functions that might be attacked separately. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document describes a mechanism for BGP that would help minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart. An End-of-RIB marker is specified and can be used to convey routing convergence information. A new BGP capability, termed "Graceful Restart Capability", is defined that would allow a BGP speaker to express its ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart. Finally, procedures are outlined for temporarily retaining routing information across a TCP session termination/re-establishment. The mechanisms described in this document are applicable to all routers, both those with the ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart and those without (although the latter need to implement only a subset of the mechanisms described in this document). [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes the use of loop-free alternates to provide local protection for unicast traffic in pure IP and MPLS/LDP networks in the event of a single failure, whether link, node, or shared risk link group (SRLG). The goal of this technology is to reduce the packet loss that happens while routers converge after a topology change due to a failure. Rapid failure repair is achieved through use of precalculated backup next-hops that are loop-free and safe to use until the distributed network convergence process completes. This simple approach does not require any support from other routers. The extent to which this goal can be met by this specification is dependent on the topology of the network. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document analyzes TCP-based routing protocols, the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), and the Multicast Source Distribution Protocol (MSDP), according to guidelines set forth in Section 4.2 of "Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols Design Guidelines", RFC 6518. This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension is that each path is identified by a Path Identifier in addition to the address prefix. Some network operators build and operate data centers that support over one hundred thousand servers. In this document, such data centers are referred to as "large-scale" to differentiate them from smaller infrastructures. Environments of this scale have a unique set of network requirements with an emphasis on operational simplicity and network stability. This document summarizes operational experience in designing and operating large-scale data centers using BGP as the only routing protocol. The intent is to report on a proven and stable routing design that could be leveraged by others in the industry. Arrcus, Inc.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank , , , , , , , , and for their reviews and comments. Thanks to for discussions on preventing a BGP SPF router from being used for non-local traffic (i.e., transit traffic). The authors extend a special thanks to for fruitful discussions on BGP-LS-SPF convergence as compared to IGPs. The authors would also like to thank the following people:

• for multiple AD reviews and discussions.
• for an extensive shepherd review.
• , , and for WG Last Call review comments.
• for his AD review and discussion.
• for his IANA review.
• for his GENART review.
• , , , and for IESG review comments.
• for his detailed IESG review and specifically for helping align the document with BGP documents.

Contributors The following people contributed substantially to the content of this document and should be considered coauthors: Arrcus, Inc.

derek@arrcus.com

Nokia

gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com

Arrcus, Inc.

abhay@arrcus.com

Cisco Systems

venuv@cisco.com

AT&T

cy098d@att.com

Authors' Addresses Arrcus, Inc.

keyur@arrcus.com

Arrcus, Inc.

301 Midenhall Way Cary NC 27513 United States of America acee.ietf@gmail.com

shafagh@shafagh.com

Nokia

copernicuslaan 50 Antwerp 2018 Belgium wim.henderickx@nokia.com