BGP Flow Specification Version 2 - More IP Actions

2.1. BGP Community Path Attribute Common Header

The BGP Community Path Attribute is defined in: [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]. The format for the BGP Community Path Attribute is shown in figure 2-1.¶

  BGP Community Path attribute common header

   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 = FSv2 (TBD4)    |    Flags  |C|T| Reserved      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|            Length             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Figure 1

where:¶

Type: (TBD4)

the type of BGP Path Attribute Community. This document specifies FSv2 BGP Path Attribute container.¶

Flag:

This one octet field is anoctet of bits with only two bit that can be set as follows:¶

T = 1 -

Transitive across AS boundaries¶

T = 0 -

Non-Transitive across AS boundaries¶

C = 1 -

Transitive across Confederation boundaries¶

C = 0 -

dNon-Transitive across Confederation boundaries¶

Reserved:

This one octet is reserved for future use. It is encoded zero for transmission and ignored up reception.¶

Length:

This two octet field gives the length of the value portion of the BGP Community Path Attribute [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities] which consists of the fields shown in figure 2-2.¶

Editor's note: Should this section be dropped?¶

2.2. FSv2 BGP Community Container Format

The FSv2 Action Container allows for grouping of multiple FSv2 actions¶

FSv2 Action TLV

 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  FSv2 action length         |
|      (2 octets)             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Dependency chain ID  (4 octets)                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        User order (4 bytes)                                   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Action subTLVs (variable)                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Figure 2

Where:¶

Action length

This 2-octet field specifies ID for the set of FSv2 actions passed in the BGP container TLV.¶

Dependency chain

A 32-bit unsigned integer in network byte order. When non-zero, the Dependent Filters Chain value is used to associate multiple NLRI together that share dependencies.¶

User Action Order

This is a 4-octet field with the value for user defined action order. A value of zero is reserved. Valid values are 1-0xFFFF.¶

Action SubTLVs+ (variable):

Sequence of Action SubTLVs with the format of Type-length-value (see figure 2-4). The type fields are defined in Table 2-3¶

FSv2 Action subTLVS

specifying the FSv2 actions in the format shown in Figure 3.¶

The FSv2 Action TLVs have the following format:¶

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | FSv2 Action Family type       | Fsv2 Action Family length     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+--+-+
    |        FSv2 Action Component TLVs  (variable)                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                          Figure 3

Where:¶

Fsv2 Action Family type (2 octets):

(2 octets)the following¶

100 - action failure processing¶

200 = group,¶

300 - redirect,¶

500 - Mark, Merge or traffic shape,¶

700 - Flag traffic for sampling,¶

900 - terminate action instructions, or¶

1000 - logging,¶

4095 - reserved¶

Note: all values not defined are unassigned¶

FSv2 Action Family length (2 octets):

is the length of the list of FSv2 action components within the Family type.¶

FSv2 Action Component TLVs: (variable):

Defined below (figure 4 and text descriptiosn)¶

Action Comoponent format:
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Action compnent type  |  Length                       |
| 4 bits|  12 bits              |                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Action component value  (variable)                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Figure 4

Where FSv2 Action Flags are defined as:¶

Action Flags

        0   1   2   3
      +---+---+---+---+
      | O | R | R | R |
      +---+---+---+---+

              Figure 5

Where the fields are defined as:¶

O - Optional:

When 0, the FSv2 action component is mandatory and MUST be supported by the local implementation. Otherwise, when 1, the action component is considered "optional". When the component is mandatory and is not supported, the FSv2 filter rule is considered "invalid" for validation purposes.¶

R - Reserved:

When not otherwise re-defined in a later document, this bit MUST be set to zero when sent and SHOULD be ignored on reception.¶

Action type:

This is a 2 octet action type field.¶

Length:

This is a 2 octet length field for the action value¶

Action value:

Action values are defined by each action.¶

2.3. FSv2 Community Container Procedure

FSv2 Community container actions allow user-ordered actions to be associated with a filter-match rule. Each FSv2 rule may have one or more match conditions and one or more associated actions.¶

[I-D.ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic] defines FSv2 NLRI operates in ships-in-the-night with the FSv1 NLRI. Flow Specification Extended Community actions can associated with FSv1 NLRI or FSv2 NLRI. Specifications for FSv2 Action are required to specify in the document how actions in the same action category (see 4.9 [I-D.ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic]). In practice, FSv1 actions in implementations define by configuration how action in the same category interoperate.¶

The precedence between FS Actions in Extend Community actions and the FSv2 Community Container Actions is that the FSv2 Community Container actions take precedence before the FSv2 Extended Community actions. If local policy alters that precedence between FS Extended Community actions and FSv2 Community container actions, it possible that the actions may have undesired effects due to the ordering of actions.¶

The basic principles for FSv2 Community container actions follows the definitions found in [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities] in section 3 that specify transitivity across Administrative and AS boundaries, Transitivity across AS confederation boundaries. The FSv2 Community Container re-uses the concepts of the FSv2 NLRI (dependency chain, user order, mandatory or optional action components).¶

the specific rules of processing the data within the FSv2 Community container for FSv2 are:¶

• Actions are ordered first user-specified ordered carried in the FSv2 Action Container in the Community Attribute. Numerically smaller user-specified order values have better precedence than larger values.¶

• For actions with the same user-specified order, the actions then ordered by FSv2 action family type, then FSv2 action component type, and then the rules for each component type.¶

• Each FSv2 Action Community Container defines its own rules governing FSv2 actions within the compnent.¶

Editor: The family type helps the default ordering of actions. Is this additional layer useful?¶

3.1. Action Failure Family

   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Action Continue option (100)  |  Length (2 octets)            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |ACO-dependency |  AC-Failure   | AC Failure value              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 2-4

3.2. Group Action Family

   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Group Interface set          |  Length                       |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |        Interface group                        |O I -  Flags   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  sequence of interfaces SubTLVs                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 Each interface has the format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |AFI            | SAFI          | interface adddress            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | interface address (continued) (4 or 16 octets)                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 2-5

3.3. Redirect Action Family

The Redirect actions in Extended Community are included in Table 2-1. The Redirect traffic component replaces these with a single action component that has ordering rules within the component.¶

 Table 2-1

FSv2 Actions supported (Extended Community)

ID  FSv2 Description               Name     FS document
==  =============================  =======  ==========
100  Redirect with sub-byte for     Redirect

       to VRF (2 AS form)          RDIPvrf  RFC8955
       to VRF (IPv4 form)          RDIPvrf  RFC8955
       to VRF (4 AS form)          RDIPvrf  RFC8955
       to IPv4 / copy              RDIPv4C  RDIP
       to IPv6 / copy              RDIPv6C  RDIP
       to VRF (IPv6 form)          RDIP6vrf RFC8956
       to Indirection ID           RDIDC    RGID
           to SFC Path                 RDSFP    RFC9015

   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   Redirect traffic (100)       |  Length (2 octets)            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |       4-ocet AS                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | AFI           | SAFI          | Redirect Type                 |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |          redirect flags       |  redirect location (variable) |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 2-8

  0             1
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | RES | S-ID  |C|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 2-9

Value field for SFC Classifier CPA
                          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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | sub-type(0x01)|    SPI                                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  SI           |      SFT      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Figure 2-11: The Format of the Flow Specification for SFC
                 Classifiers Extended Community

3.4. Mark, Merge, and Shape Traffic Action Family

   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |        Action type (0x08)     |  Length (2 octets)            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |RR | DSCP      | Reserved                                      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 2-10

   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |        Action type            |  Length (2 octets)            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  type of rate limit           |   length of rate field        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Maximum rate of bytes                                 |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 2-6

3.5. Sample of Copy Action Family

   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     Traffic Sample  (400)     |  Length                       |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |        Sample/Copy Value      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 2-7

3.6. Terminate Action Family

Value field for Terminate FS Action
                          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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | component type (100)          |  length                       |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | action upon Termate           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Figure 2-11: Format of the

4.1. Validation of Flow Specification Actions

FSv2 actions may associate actions using Extended Communities or the BGP Community Container attribute (FSv2-BCA) with FSv2 NLRIs. All the NLRIs in an UPDATE packet are associate with a FSv2 action found in either one or more FSv2 actions in an Extended Community or a FSv2 BGP Community container.¶

Actions may conflict, duplicate, or complement other actions. FSv2 BGP Community container actions have precedence over the FSv2 actions in an Extended Community.¶

Well-formed syntactically correct actions are logically linked to the filter rule(s) in the NLRI in the BGP Path Attributes. If one action in the ordered list fails, the default procedure is for the action process for this rule to stop and flag the error via system management. By explicit configuration, the action processing may continue after errors.¶

Implementations MAY wish to log the actions taken by FS actions (FSv1 or FSv2).¶

4.2. Ordering of Actions

The normal processing of FSv2 actions are by first by user order. Within the same user order, by Action family type in ascending Order where lower numbers have more precedence. Within the same user order and action family type, by action component type where lower numbers have more precedence. Within the same user order, action family type, and action component type, the component must specify precedence.¶

4.3. Manageability of actions

It is important that the operator consider where actions can successfully be implement in computer hardware. For example, if a flow specification action to mark traffic at a particular node cannot be done with the router's hardware, the distribution of flowspec rules with actions may be successful but the FSv2 actions fail. This failure to mark a DSCP may cause other problems.¶

8.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label]

liangqiandeng, Hares, S., You, J., Raszuk, R., and D. Ma, "Carrying Label Information for BGP FlowSpec", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-02, 20 October 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-02>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset]

Litkowski, S., Simpson, A., Patel, K., and J. Haas, "Applying BGP flowspec rules on a specific interface-set", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-06, 2 September 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-06>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn]

Weiguo, H., Eastlake, D. E., Litkowski, S., and S. Zhuang, "BGP Dissemination of L2 Flow Specification Rules", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-27, 16 March 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-27>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match]

Yong, L., Hares, S., liangqiandeng, and J. You, "BGP Flow Specification Filter for MPLS Label", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-02, 20 October 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-02>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3]

Eastlake, D. E., Weiguo, H., Zhuang, S., Li, Z., and R. Gu, "BGP Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for Tunneled Traffic", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-24, 3 June 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-24>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect]

Van de Velde, G., Patel, K., and Z. Li, "Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-13, 22 April 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-13>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip]

Haas, J., Henderickx, W., and A. Simpson, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect-to-IP Action", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-16, 21 May 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-16>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6]

Li, Z., Dong, J., Loibl, C., Mishra, G. S., Zhu, Y., and S. Zhuang, "BGP Flow Specification for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6-11, 25 October 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6-11>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic]

Hares, S., Eastlake, D. E., Dong, J., Yadlapalli, C., Maduschke, S., and J. Haas, "BGP Flow Specification Version 2 - for Basic IP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic-08, 28 September 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic-08>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-rpd]

Li, Z., Ou, L., Luo, Y., Mishra, G. S., Chen, H., and H. Wang, "BGP Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-rpd-20, 1 March 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd-20>.

[I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]

Raszuk, R., Haas, J., Lange, A., Decraene, B., Amante, S., and P. Jakma, "BGP Community Container Attribute", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-12, 17 March 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-12>.

[RFC0791]

Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC791, September 1981, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC3032]

Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

[RFC4271]

Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

[RFC4360]

Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

[RFC4760]

Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

[RFC5065]

Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065, DOI 10.17487/RFC5065, August 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5065>.

[RFC5701]

Rekhter, Y., "IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute", RFC 5701, DOI 10.17487/RFC5701, November 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5701>.

[RFC6482]

Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.

[RFC7153]

Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities", RFC 7153, DOI 10.17487/RFC7153, March 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153>.

[RFC7606]

Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC8955]

Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M. Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 8955, DOI 10.17487/RFC8955, December 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8955>.

[RFC8956]

Loibl, C., Ed., Raszuk, R., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6", RFC 8956, DOI 10.17487/RFC8956, December 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8956>.

[RFC9015]

Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L. Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for the Network Service Header in Service Function Chaining", RFC 9015, DOI 10.17487/RFC9015, June 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9015>.

[RFC9117]

Uttaro, J., Alcaide, J., Filsfils, C., Smith, D., and P. Mohapatra, "Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow Specifications", RFC 9117, DOI 10.17487/RFC9117, August 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9117>.

[RFC9184]

Loibl, C., "BGP Extended Community Registries Update", RFC 9184, DOI 10.17487/RFC9184, January 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9184>.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2]

Hares, S., Eastlake, D. E., Yadlapalli, C., and S. Maduschke, "BGP Flow Specification Version 2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-v2-04, 28 April 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-v2-04>.

[RFC6241]

Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

[RFC8040]

Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.

[RFC8205]

Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.

[RFC8206]

George, W. and S. Murphy, "BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration", RFC 8206, DOI 10.17487/RFC8206, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8206>.

[RFC8402]

Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.