<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- edited with XMLSPY v5 rel. 3 U (http://www.xmlspy.com)
     by Daniel M Kohn (private) -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
]>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-22"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext">BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology
    Retrieval</title>

    <author fullname="Aijun Wang" initials="A" surname="Wang">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Beiqijia Town, Changping District</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region>Beijing</region>

          <code>102209</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Huaimo Chen" initials="H" surname="Chen">
      <organization>Individual</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Boston</city>

          <region>MA</region>

          <code/>

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

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

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

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

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

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

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

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shunwan Zhuang" initials="S" surname="Zhuang">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region/>

          <code>100095</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>zhuangshunwan@huawei.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Changwang Lin" initials="C" surname="Lin">
      <organization>New H3C Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>linchangwang.04414@h3c.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="7" month="April" year="2026"/>

    <area>RTG Area</area>

    <workgroup>IDR Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>RFC</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies the procedure for distributing Border Gateway
      Protocol-Link State (BGP-LS) key parameters for inter-domain links
      between two Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines a new type within the
      BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for a Stub Link, as
      well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the BGP-LS Stub Link
      descriptor. These BGP-LS extensions enable Software-Defined Networking
      (SDN) controllers to retrieve network topology across inter-AS
      environments.</t>

      <t>These extensions and procedures allow network operators to collect
      inter-domain interconnect information and automatically compute the
      end-to-end network topology using information provided by the BGP-LS
      protocol.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>BGP-LS <xref target="RFC9552"/> describes the use of BGP protocol for
      advertisement of the Link-State topology information. It enables
      applications such as a SDN controllers to collect the underlay network
      topology. <xref target="RFC9552"/> covers the advertisement of topology
      information from within Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) domain. If the
      network has more than one IGP domain, and these domains interconnect
      with each other via inter-AS links, there is no mechanism within the
      current BGP-LS to advertise the interconnect topology information.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC9086"/> defines extensions for exporting BGP peering
      node topology information (including peers, interfaces, and peering
      ASes) in a way that is used to compute efficient BGP Peering Engineering
      policies and strategies. This information can also be used to compute
      interconnection topology among different IGP domains, but it requires
      every border router to run the BGP-LS protocol and report such
      information to SDN controllers. Considering there will be several border
      routers on the network boundary, such solution restricts its deployment
      flexibility.</t>

      <t>This document defines the Stub Link NLRI and some new TLVs for BGP-LS
      to cover scenarios where a SDN controller needs to get the
      interconnection topology information between different AS domains when
      sourced from IGPs.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Requirements Language">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
      <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t>The following terms are defined in this document:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>IDCs: Internet Data Centers</t>

          <t>MAN: Metro-Area-Network</t>

          <t>SDN: Software Definition Network</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="s-Inter-AS-Scenario" title="Inter-AS Domain Scenarios">
      <t>Figure 1 illustrates the multi-domain scenarios discussed in this
      document. Typically, the SDN Controller can retrieve the topology of IGP
      A and IGP B individually via the BGP-LS protocol, but it cannot obtain
      topology connection information between these two IGP domains, as IGP
      protocols are generally not run on the inter-AS links.<figure>
          <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[                      +-----------------+
                 +----+IP SDN Controller+----+
                 |    +-----------------+    |
                 |                           |
                 |BGP-LS                     |BGP-LS
                 |                           |
 +---------------+-----+               +-----+--------------+
 | +--+        +-++   ++-+           +-++   +|-+        +--+|
 | |S1+--------+S2+---+B1+-----------+B2+---+T1+--------+T2||
 | +-++   N1   +-++   ++-+           +-++   ++++   N2   +-++|
 |   |           |     |               |     ||           | |
 |   |           |     |               |     ||           | |
 | +-++        +-++   ++-+           +-++   ++++        +-++|
 | |S4+--------+S3+---+B3+-----------+B4+---+T3+--------+T4||
 | +--+        +--+   ++-+           +-++   ++-+        +--+|
 |                     |               |                    |
 |                     |               |                    |
 |       IGP A         |               |      IGP B         |
 +---------------------+               +--------------------+

             Figure 1: Inter-AS Domain Scenarios
]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="s-Stub-Link-NLRI" title="Stub Link NLRI">
      <t><xref target="RFC9552"/> defines four NLRI types (Node, Link, IPv4
      Topology Prefix, and IPv6 Topology Prefix) to transfer the topology and
      prefix information. For inter-AS link, as the two ends of the link
      belong in different IGP domains and the link does not run an IGP
      protocol, it is not appropriate to advertise their information within
      the existing NLRI types listed above.</t>

      <t>This document defines a new NLRI type 7, see<spanx>  </spanx><xref
      target="s-IANA"/>) within the BGP-LS NLRI, referred to as the Stub Link
      NLRI. The Stub Link NLRI is encoded in the format shown in Figure 2 as
      explained below:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Protocol-ID  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           Identifier                          |
     |                            (64 bits)                          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     //              Local Node Descriptors (variable)              //
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     //               Stub Link Descriptors (variable)              //
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 2: Stub Link NLRI Format]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>This document specifies the advertisement of Inter-AS Links using the
      Stub Link NLRI when originating the information from the underlying OSPF
      <xref target="RFC5392"/> and IS-IS <xref target="RFC9346"/>
      advertisements. </t>

      <t>This section describes the encoding of the Stub Link NLRI while the
      more detailed procedures for sourcing of this information from the
      underlying IGP are described in <xref target="secAdvertisement"/>.</t>

      <t> The "Protocol-ID" is set to the value indicating the source protocol
      of the stub link information, as specified in <xref target="RFC9552"/>
      Section 5.2. As the information is sourced from OSPF or IS-IS, the value
      MUST correspond to one of IGP values as specified in <xref
      target="RFC9552"/>. </t>

      <t>The semantics of "Identifier" field are the same as defined in <xref
      target="RFC9552"/> and will be set to a value that is identical to the
      "Identifier" value of the IGP domain associated with the ASBR of the
      inter-AS link. Therefore, the "Identifier" values for the two half-links
      (refer section 5.2.2 of <xref target="RFC9552"/> of the inter-AS link
      could be different depending on the configuration of Identifiers for the
      two IGP domains. </t>

      <t>The "Local Node Descriptors" field is encoded using the TLV 256
      defined in section 5.2.1 of <xref target="RFC9552"/> to identify the
      ASBR associated with the specific half-link of the inter-AS link. The
      following TLVs MUST be included as the Local Node Descriptors:</t>

      <t> - Autonomous System (TLV 512) <xref target="RFC9552"/></t>

      <t> - OSPF Area-ID (TLV 514) <xref target="RFC9552"/> to be included
      only in the case of OSPF when the Inter-AS TE LSA from which information
      is sourced is being flooded with an area-scope; it is not included when
      the LSA is flooded with AS-scope</t>

      <t> - IGP Router ID (TLV 515) encoded for either OSPF or IS-IS depending
      on the source protocol as specified in section 5.2.1.4 of <xref
      target="RFC9552"/>.</t>

      <t> - One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028
      and/or 1029 <xref target="RFC9552"/>, depending on whether the ASBR is
      configured with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs (Note:
      while <xref target="RFC9552"/> introduced these TLVs for use in the
      BGP-LS Attribute, this document also leverages the same TLVs for use in
      the NLRI) </t>

      <t/>

      <t>Stub Link Descriptors are encoded as TLVs that identify the specific
      half-link of the inter-AS link. Section 6 of this document introduces
      the TLVs that MUST be included as the Stub Link Descriptors:</t>

      <t> - Remote AS Number (TLV 270)</t>

      <t> - One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID using TLV 271 and/or
      272, depending on whether the Remote ASBR is configured with one or both
      of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs.</t>

      <t>Additionally, the following TLVs MUST be included as Stub Link
      Descriptors if they are being advertised in the underlying IGP
      advertisement of the inter-AS link as they help identify individual
      links when there are more than one inter-AS links between two ASBRs.</t>

      <t>- Link Local/Remote Identifiers (TLV 258) <xref
      target="RFC9552"/></t>

      <t>- IPv4 Interface Address (TLV 259) <xref target="RFC9552"/></t>

      <t>- IPv4 Neighbor Address (TLV 260) <xref target="RFC9552"/></t>

      <t>- IPv6 Interface Address (TLV 261) <xref target="RFC9552"/></t>

      <t>- IPv6 Neighbor Address (TLV 262) <xref target="RFC9552"/> </t>

      <t>Use of any other TLVs as Local Node Descriptors or Stub Link
      Descriptors may cause challenges in the correlation of the two Stub Link
      NLRI half-links when the BGP-LS Producer implementations vary. </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secStubLinkTLV"
             title="Inter-AS Stub Link Descriptor TLVs">
      <t>This document introduces three TLVs for inclusion as Stub Link
      Descriptors within the Stub Link NLRI for the advertisement of inter-AS
      link information via BGP-LS. </t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[+-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
|  TLV Code | Description         |IS-IS/OSPF TLV| Reference      |
|   Point   |                     |   /Sub-TLV   | (RFC/Section)  |
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
|    270    |Remote AS Number     |   24/21      | [RFC9346]/3.4.1|
|           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.1|
|    271    |IPv4 Remote ASBR ID  |   25/22      | [RFC9346]/3.4.2|
|           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.2| 
|    272    |IPv6 Remote ASBR ID  |   26/24      | [RFC9346]/3.4.3|
|           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.3|
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
             Figure 3: Stub Link Descriptor TLVs]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>The encoding of these TLVs are aligned with the corresponding
      advertisements in <xref target="RFC9346"/> and <xref target="RFC5392"/>,
      which keeps the BGP-LS protocol agnostic to the underly protocol.</t>

      <section anchor="secRemoteAS" title="Remote AS Number TLV">
        <t>The Remote AS Number TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring
        AS to which the advertised link connects.</t>

        <t>The Remote AS Number TLV is TLV Type 270 and is 4 octets in length.
        Its format is as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|              Type             |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote AS Number                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 4: Remote AS Number TLV Format    ]]></artwork>
          </figure>The Remote AS Number field has 4 octets. When only 2 octets
        are used for the AS number (for example, when such information is
        advertised from OSPF, as in current deployments), the left
        (high-order) 2 octets MUST be set to 0.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="secIPv4RemoteASBR" title="IPv4 Remote ASBR ID">
        <t>The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv4 identifier of the
        remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This can
        be any stable, routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR. The use of
        the TE Router ID, as specified in the Traffic Engineering Router ID
        TLV <xref target="RFC9346"/> is RECOMMENDED.</t>

        <t>The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV Type 271 and is 4 octets in
        length. Its format is as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|              Type             |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            Figure 5:  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV Format ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="secIPv6RemoteASBR" title="IPv6 Remote ASBR ID">
        <t>The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv6 identifier of the
        remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This can
        be any stable, routable IPv6 address of the remote ASBR. The use of
        the TE Router ID, as specified in the IPv6 Traffic Engineering Router
        ID TLV <xref target="RFC9346"/> is RECOMMENDED.</t>

        <t>The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV Type 272 and is 16 octets in
        length. Its format is as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|              Type             |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 6:  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV Format]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring
        ASBR has an IPv6 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an
        IPv6 address, the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included instead.
        Both an IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV and an IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV MAY be
        present in an inter-AS Stub Link NLRI.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secAdvertisement"
             title="Advertisement of IGP Information for Inter-AS Links">
      <t>Advertisement of Inter-AS Links along with their TE information is
      done is done in IGPs as follows: </t>

      <t>- In OSPFv2 via the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA <xref target="RFC5392"/></t>

      <t> - In OSPFv3 via the Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA<xref target="RFC5392"/></t>

      <t> - In IS-IS via the Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV (TLV 141)
      <xref target="RFC9346"/></t>

      <t>When advertising these Inter-AS Links from the IGPs into BGP-LS as
      Stub Links, the sourcing of information for the Stub Link NLRI except
      for the Stub Link Descriptors follows the same procedures as specified
      in <xref target="RFC9552"/>. The information about the Remote AS Number
      and the IPv4/IPv6 Remote ASBR IDs specified in <xref
      target="secStubLinkTLV"/> are derived from the Remote AS Number and
      IPv4/IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLVs specified for OSPF and IS-IS in <xref
      target="RFC5392"/> and <xref target="RFC9346"/> respectively. The rest
      of the Stub Descriptor TLVs of the Stub NLRI are sourced from the base
      OSPF/ISIS TE TLVs that were originally introduced for normal IGP links
      and which are also encoded for the inter-AS TE links as specified in
      <xref target="RFC5392"/> and <xref target="RFC9346"/>; their procedures
      are therefore same as in <xref target="RFC9552"/>. </t>

      <t>The OSPF/ISIS Inter-AS Link advertisements also include various link
      properties (e.g., TE metric, Admin Groups, SRLGs, etc.) which are
      encoded using the same TLVs as for normal IGP links. These link
      properties are advertised using their corresponding BGP-LS TLVs as
      specified in <xref target="RFC9552"/> and other BGP-LS extensions in the
      BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Stub Link NLRI of that specific
      link.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>BGP-LS security is specified in <xref target="RFC9552"/>. This
      extension to BGP-LS focuses on scenarios where a single entity-operated
      network includes multiple IGP domains composed of its backbone network,
      several Metro-Area Networks (MANs), and Internet Data Centers (IDCs).
      The configuration of these networks, operated by a single administrative
      entity, creates a "walled garden". Within this single administrative
      domain, the network operator needs to monitor and engineer traffic flows
      traversing a network that spans multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes). The
      network operator can obtain this inter-AS topology information via the
      procedure described in this document.</t>

      <t>A single administrative domain consisting of two ASes that passes
      information about Stub Link characteristics does not cause issues within
      a "walled garden". However, the Stub Link NLRI and its characteristics
      (Link/Local Identifier, IPv4 Interface Address, IPv4 Neighbor Address,
      IPv6 Interface Address, IPv6 Neighbor Address, Multi-Topology
      Identifier, Remote-AS Number, IPv4 Remote ASBR ID, and IPv6 Remote ASBR
      ID) constitute critical network information. As such, operators SHOULD
      handle this critical information in a manner that restricts it to the
      walled garden.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="s-IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document requests IANA to update the allocated codepoints from
      under the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters"
      registry group as follows:</t>

      <section title="New BGP-LS NLRI type">
        <t>IANA has allocated codepoint for the Stub Link NLRI type from the
        "BGP-LS NLRI Types" registry as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    Type       |   NLRI Type   |          Reference            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       7       | Stub Link NLRI|        This document          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 7:  Stub Link NLRI Codepoint]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="New Stub Link Descriptors">
        <t>IANA has allocated codepoints for the following TLVs from "BGP-LS
        NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   TLV Code Point  |   Description         |      Reference        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      270          | Remote AS Number      | Allocation from IANA  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      271          |  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID  | Allocation from IANA  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      272          |  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID  | Allocation from IANA  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 8:  BGP-LS Link Descriptors TLV]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgement">
      <t>The author would like to thank Susan Hares, Acee Lindem, Jie Dong,
      Shaowen Ma, Jeff Tantsura and Dhruv Dhody for their valuable comments
      and suggestions.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

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

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5392"?>

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

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9346"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9552"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9086"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
