Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Lindem
Request for Comments: 8362 A. Roy
Updates: 5340, 5838 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track D. Goethals
ISSN: 2070-1721 Nokia
V. Reddy Vallem
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Lindem
Request for Comments: 8362 A. Roy
Updates: 5340, 5838 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track D. Goethals
ISSN: 2070-1721 Nokia
V. Reddy Vallem
F. Baker April 2018
F.贝克2018年4月
OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility
OSPFv3链路状态播发（LSA）扩展性
Abstract
摘要
OSPFv3 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done with the fixed-format Link State Advertisement (LSA) as described in RFC 5340. Without LSA extension, attributes associated with OSPFv3 links and advertised IPv6 prefixes must be advertised in separate LSAs and correlated to the fixed-format LSAs. This document extends the LSA format by encoding the existing OSPFv3 LSA information in Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples and allowing advertisement of additional information with additional TLVs. Backward-compatibility mechanisms are also described.
OSPFv3需要功能扩展，超出RFC5340中所述的固定格式链路状态公告（LSA）的功能范围。如果没有LSA扩展，与OSPFv3链路和播发的IPv6前缀关联的属性必须在单独的LSA中播发，并与固定格式的LSA关联。本文档通过在类型长度值（TLV）元组中编码现有的OSPFv3 LSA信息并允许使用附加TLV发布附加信息，扩展了LSA格式。还描述了向后兼容机制。
This document updates RFC 5340, "OSPF for IPv6", and RFC 5838, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", by providing TLV-based encodings for the base OSPFv3 unicast support and OSPFv3 address family support.
本文档通过为基本OSPFv3单播支持和OSPFv3地址族支持提供基于TLV的编码，更新了RFC 5340“用于IPv6的OSPF”和RFC 5838“支持OSPFv3中的地址族”。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
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.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2018 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. OSPFv3 LSA Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Prefix Options Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. N-bit Prefix Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Router-Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Attached-Routers TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Inter-Area-Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Inter-Area-Router TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. External-Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7. Intra-Area-Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8. IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.9. IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.10. IPv6-Forwarding-Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.11. IPv4-Forwarding-Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.12. Route-Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. OSPFv3 Extended LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. OSPFv3 E-Network-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5. OSPFv3 E-AS-External-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.6. OSPFv3 E-NSSA-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.7. OSPFv3 E-Link-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.8. OSPFv3 E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Malformed OSPFv3 Extended LSA Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. LSA Extension Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1. Full Extended LSA Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.2. Extended LSA Sparse-Mode Backward Compatibility . . . . . 26
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. OSPFv3 LSA Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Prefix Options Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. N-bit Prefix Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Router-Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Attached-Routers TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Inter-Area-Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Inter-Area-Router TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. External-Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7. Intra-Area-Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8. IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.9. IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.10. IPv6-Forwarding-Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.11. IPv4-Forwarding-Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.12. Route-Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. OSPFv3 Extended LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. OSPFv3 E-Network-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5. OSPFv3 E-AS-External-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.6. OSPFv3 E-NSSA-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.7. OSPFv3 E-Link-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.8. OSPFv3 E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Malformed OSPFv3 Extended LSA Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. LSA Extension Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1. Full Extended LSA Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.2. Extended LSA Sparse-Mode Backward Compatibility . . . . . 26
6.3. LSA TLV Processing Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . 26
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.1. OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.2. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Global Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix B. Area Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3. LSA TLV Processing Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . 26
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.1. OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.2. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Global Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix B. Area Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
OSPFv3 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done with the fixed-format Link State Advertisement (LSA) as described in RFC 5340 [OSPFV3]. Without LSA extension, attributes associated with OSPFv3 links and advertised IPv6 prefixes must be advertised in separate LSAs and correlated to the fixed-format LSAs. This document extends the LSA format by encoding the existing OSPFv3 LSA information in Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples and allowing advertisement of additional information with additional TLVs. Backward-compatibility mechanisms are also described.
OSPFv3需要功能扩展，超出RFC 5340[OSPFv3]中所述的固定格式链路状态公告（LSA）的功能范围。如果没有LSA扩展，与OSPFv3链路和播发的IPv6前缀关联的属性必须在单独的LSA中播发，并与固定格式的LSA关联。本文档通过在类型长度值（TLV）元组中编码现有的OSPFv3 LSA信息并允许使用附加TLV发布附加信息，扩展了LSA格式。还描述了向后兼容机制。
This document updates RFC 5340, "OSPF for IPv6", and RFC 5838, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", by providing TLV-based encodings for the base OSPFv3 support [OSPFV3] and OSPFv3 address family support [OSPFV3-AF].
本文档通过为基本OSPFv3支持[OSPFv3]和OSPFv3地址系列支持[OSPFv3-AF]提供基于TLV的编码，更新了RFC 5340“用于IPv6的OSPF”和RFC 5838“支持OSPFv3中的地址系列”。
A similar extension was previously proposed in support of multi-topology routing. Additional requirements for the OSPFv3 LSA extension include source/destination routing, route tagging, and others.
先前提出了一个类似的扩展来支持多拓扑路由。OSPFv3 LSA扩展的其他要求包括源/目的地路由、路由标记等。
A final requirement is to limit the changes to OSPFv3 to those necessary for TLV-based LSAs. For the most part, the semantics of existing OSPFv3 LSAs are retained for their TLV-based successor LSAs described herein. Additionally, encoding details, e.g., the representation of IPv6 prefixes as described in Appendix A.4.1 in RFC 5340 [OSPFV3], have been retained. This requirement was included to increase the expedience of IETF adoption and deployment.
最后一项要求是将OSPFv3的变更限制在基于TLV的LSA所需的变更范围内。在大多数情况下，现有OSPFv3 LSA的语义保留用于本文所述的基于TLV的后续LSA。此外，还保留了编码细节，例如RFC 5340[OSPFV3]附录A.4.1中描述的IPv6前缀表示。这一要求是为了增加IETF采用和部署的便利性。
The following aspects of the OSPFv3 LSA extension are described:
描述了OSPFv3 LSA扩展的以下方面：
1. Extended LSA Types
1. 扩展LSA类型
2. Extended LSA TLVs
2. 扩展LSA TLV
3. Extended LSA Formats
3. 扩展LSA格式
4. Backward Compatibility
4. 向后兼容性
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“不建议”、“可”和“可选”在所有大写字母出现时（如图所示）应按照BCP 14[RFC2119][RFC8174]所述进行解释。
The TLV-based OSPFv3 LSAs described in this document will be referred to as Extended LSAs. The OSPFv3 fixed-format LSAs [OSPFV3] will be referred to as Legacy LSAs.
本文件中描述的基于TLV的OSPFv3 LSA将被称为扩展LSA。OSPFv3固定格式LSA[OSPFv3]将被称为传统LSA。
In order to provide backward compatibility, new LSA codes must be allocated. There are eight fixed-format LSAs defined in RFC 5340 [OSPFV3]. For ease of implementation and debugging, the LSA function codes are the same as the fixed-format LSAs only with 32, i.e., 0x20, added. The alternative to this mapping was to allocate a bit in the LS Type indicating the new LSA format. However, this would have used one half the LSA function code space for the migration of the eight original fixed-format LSAs. For backward compatibility, the U-bit MUST be set in the LS Type so that the LSAs will be flooded by OSPFv3 routers that do not understand them.
为了提供向后兼容性，必须分配新的LSA代码。RFC 5340[OSPFV3]中定义了八种固定格式的LSA。为便于实施和调试，LSA功能代码与固定格式LSA相同，仅增加了32个，即0x20。这种映射的替代方法是在LS类型中分配一个位，指示新的LSA格式。然而，这将使用LSA函数代码空间的一半来迁移八个原始固定格式LSA。为了向后兼容，必须在LS类型中设置U位，以便LSA将被不理解它们的OSPFv3路由器淹没。
LSA function code LS Type Description
----------------------------------------------------
33 0xA021 E-Router-LSA
34 0xA022 E-Network-LSA
35 0xA023 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA
36 0xA024 E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA
37 0xC025 E-AS-External-LSA
38 N/A Unused (Not to be allocated)
39 0xA027 E-Type-7-LSA
40 0x8028 E-Link-LSA
41 0xA029 E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
LSA function code LS Type Description
----------------------------------------------------
33 0xA021 E-Router-LSA
34 0xA022 E-Network-LSA
35 0xA023 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA
36 0xA024 E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA
37 0xC025 E-AS-External-LSA
38 N/A Unused (Not to be allocated)
39 0xA027 E-Type-7-LSA
40 0x8028 E-Link-LSA
41 0xA029 E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
OSPFv3 Extended LSA Types
OSPFv3扩展LSA类型
The format of the TLVs within the body of the Extended LSAs is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE]. The variable TLV section consists of one or more nested TLV tuples. Nested TLVs are also referred to as sub-TLVs. The format of each TLV is:
扩展LSA主体内TLV的格式与OSPF[TE]的流量工程扩展使用的格式相同。变量TLV部分由一个或多个嵌套TLV元组组成。嵌套TLV也称为子TLV。每个TLV的格式为：
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TLV Format
TLV格式
The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets (thus, a TLV with no value portion would have a length of 0). The TLV is padded to 4-octet alignment; padding is not included in the Length field (so a 3-octet value would have a length of 3, but the total size of the TLV would be 8 octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a 1-byte value would have the Length field set to 1, and 3 octets of padding would be added to the end of the value portion of the TLV.
长度字段以八位字节定义值部分的长度（因此，没有值部分的TLV的长度为0）。TLV填充为4-八位组对齐；长度字段中不包括填充（因此3个八位字节的值的长度为3，但TLV的总大小为8个八位字节）。嵌套TLV也是32位对齐的。例如，一个1字节的值将把Length字段设置为1，并在TLV的值部分的末尾添加3个八位字节的填充。
This document defines the following top-level TLV types:
本文件定义了以下顶级TLV类型：
o 0 - Reserved
o 0-保留
o 1 - Router-Link TLV
o 1-路由器链路TLV
o 2 - Attached-Routers TLV
o 2-连接路由器TLV
o 3 - Inter-Area-Prefix TLV
o 3-区域间前缀TLV
o 4 - Inter-Area-Router TLV
o 4-区域间路由器TLV
o 5 - External-Prefix TLV
o 5-外部前缀TLV
o 6 - Intra-Area-Prefix TLV
o 6-区域内前缀TLV
o 7 - IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV
o 7-IPv6链路本地地址TLV
o 8 - IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV
o 8-IPv4链路本地地址TLV
Additionally, this document defines the following sub-TLV types:
此外，本文件定义了以下子TLV类型：
o 0 - Reserved
o 0-保留
o 1 - IPv6-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV
o 1-IPv6转发地址子TLV
o 2 - IPv4-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV
o 2-IPv4转发地址子TLV
o 3 - Route-Tag sub-TLV
o 3-路线标签子TLV
In general, TLVs and sub-TLVs MAY occur in any order, and the specification should define whether the TLV or sub-TLV is required and the behavior when there are multiple occurrences of the TLV or sub-TLV. While this document only describes the usage of TLVs and sub-TLVs, sub-TLVs may be nested to any level as long as the sub-TLVs are fully specified in the specification for the subsuming sub-TLV.
一般来说，TLV和子TLV可能以任何顺序出现，规范应定义是否需要TLV或子TLV，以及TLV或子TLV多次出现时的行为。虽然本文件仅描述TLV和子TLV的使用，但子TLV可以嵌套到任何级别，只要子TLV在子TLV规范中完全指定。
For backward compatibility, an LSA is not considered malformed from a TLV perspective unless either a required TLV is missing or a specified TLV is less than the minimum required length. Refer to Section 6.3 for more information on TLV backward compatibility.
对于向后兼容性，从TLV角度来看，LSA不被视为格式错误，除非缺少所需的TLV或指定的TLV小于所需的最小长度。有关TLV向后兼容性的更多信息，请参阅第6.3节。
The prefix options are extended from Appendix A.4.1.1 [OSPFV3]. The applicability of the LA-bit is expanded, and it SHOULD be set in Inter-Area-Prefix TLVs and MAY be set in External-Prefix TLVs when the advertised host IPv6 address, i.e., PrefixLength = 128 for the IPv6 Address Family or PrefixLength = 32 for the IPv4 Address Family [OSPFV3-AF], is an interface address. In RFC 5340, the LA-bit is only set in Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs (Section 4.4.3.9 of [OSPFV3]). This will allow a stable address to be advertised without having to configure a separate loopback address in every OSPFv3 area.
前缀选项由附录A.4.1.1[OSPFV3]扩展而来。LA位的适用性得到扩展，当播发的主机IPv6地址（即IPv6地址族的PrefixLength=128或IPv4地址族[OSPFV3-AF]的PrefixLength=32）是接口地址时，应在区域间前缀TLV中设置LA位，并可在外部前缀TLV中设置LA位。在RFC 5340中，LA位仅在区域内前缀LSA中设置（OSPFV3第4.4.3.9节）。这将允许公布稳定的地址，而无需在每个OSPFv3区域中配置单独的环回地址。
Additionally, the N-bit prefix option is defined. The figure below shows the position of the N-bit in the prefix options (value 0x20).
此外，还定义了N位前缀选项。下图显示了前缀选项中N位的位置（值0x20）。
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | | N|DN| P| x|LA|NU|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | | N|DN| P| x|LA|NU|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
The Prefix Options Field
前缀选项字段
The N-bit is set in PrefixOptions for a host address (PrefixLength=128 for the IPv6 Address Family or PrefixLength=32 for the IPv4 Address Family [OSPFV3-AF]) that identifies the advertising router. While it is similar to the LA-bit, there are two differences. The advertising router MAY choose NOT to set the N-bit even when the above conditions are met. If the N-bit is set and the PrefixLength is NOT 128 for the IPv6 Address Family or 32 for the IPv4 Address Family [OSPFV3-AF], the N-bit MUST be ignored. Additionally, the N-bit is propagated in the PrefixOptions when an OSPFv3 Area Border Router (ABR) originates an Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA for an Intra-Area route that has the N-bit set in the PrefixOptions. Similarly, the N-bit is propagated in the PrefixOptions when an OSPFv3 Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) ABR originates an E-AS-External-LSA corresponding to an NSSA route as described in Section 3 of RFC 3101 [NSSA]. The N-bit is added to the Inter-Area-Prefix TLV (Section 3.4), External-Prefix TLV (Section 3.6), and Intra-Area-Prefix-TLV (Section 3.7). The N-bit is used as hint to identify the preferred address to reach the advertising OSPFv3 router. This would be in contrast to an anycast address [IPV6-ADDRESS-ARCH], which could also be a local address with the LA-bit set. It is useful for applications such as identifying the prefixes corresponding to Node Segment Identifiers (SIDs) in Segment Routing [SEGMENT-ROUTING]. There may be future applications requiring selection of a prefix associated with an OSPFv3 router.
N位在主机地址的前缀选项中设置（IPv6地址系列的前缀长度=128，IPv4地址系列的前缀长度=32[OSPFV3-AF]），用于标识播发路由器。虽然它与LA bit类似，但有两个区别。即使满足上述条件，广告路由器也可以选择不设置N位。如果设置了N位，并且IPv6地址系列的前缀长度不是128，IPv4地址系列[OSPFV3-AF]的前缀长度不是32，则必须忽略N位。此外，当OSPFv3区域边界路由器（ABR）为在前缀选项中设置了N位的区域内路由发起区域间前缀LSA时，N位在前缀选项中传播。类似地，如RFC 3101[NSSA]第3节中所述，当OSPFv3非如此短截区（NSSA）ABR发起对应于NSSA路由的E-AS-External-LSA时，N位在前缀选项中传播。N位添加到区域间前缀TLV（第3.4节）、外部前缀TLV（第3.6节）和区域内前缀TLV（第3.7节）。N位用作提示，以标识到达OSPFv3路由器的首选地址。这将与选播地址[IPV6-address-ARCH]形成对比，后者也可以是设置了LA位的本地地址。它对于诸如在段路由[Segment-Routing]中识别与节点段标识符（SID）相对应的前缀等应用非常有用。未来的应用可能需要选择与OSPFv3路由器相关联的前缀。
The Router-Link TLV defines a single router link, and the field definitions correspond directly to links in the OSPFv3 Router-LSA; see Appendix A.4.3 of [OSPFV3]. The Router-Link TLV is only applicable to the E-Router-LSA (Section 4.1). Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
路由器链路TLV定义单个路由器链路，字段定义直接对应于OSPFv3路由器LSA中的链路；见[OSPFV3]的附录A.4.3。路由器链路TLV仅适用于E-Router-LSA（第4.1节）。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 (Router-Link) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 (Router-Link) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Router-Link TLV
路由器链路
The Attached-Routers TLV defines all the routers attached to an OSPFv3 multi-access network. The field definitions correspond directly to content of the OSPFv3 Network-LSA; see Appendix A.4.4 of [OSPFV3]. The Attached-Routers TLV is only applicable to the E-Network-LSA (Section 4.2). Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
连接的路由器TLV定义了连接到OSPFv3多址网络的所有路由器。字段定义直接对应于OSPFv3网络LSA的内容；见[OSPFV3]的附录A.4.4。所附路由器TLV仅适用于电子网络LSA（第4.2节）。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 (Attached-Routers) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Adjacent Neighbor Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Additional Adjacent Neighbors .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 (Attached-Routers) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Adjacent Neighbor Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Additional Adjacent Neighbors .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Attached-Routers TLV
附加路由器
There are two reasons for not having a separate TLV or sub-TLV for each adjacent neighbor. The first is to discourage using the E-Network-LSA for more than its current role of solely advertising the routers attached to a multi-access network. The router's metric as well as the attributes of individual attached routers should be advertised in their respective E-Router-LSAs. The second reason is that there is only a single E-Network-LSA per multi-access link with the Link State ID set to the Designated Router's Interface ID, and consequently, compact encoding has been chosen to decrease the likelihood that the size of the E-Network-LSA will require IPv6 fragmentation when advertised in an OSPFv3 Link State Update packet.
有两个原因不为每个相邻的邻居提供单独的TLV或子TLV。第一种是不鼓励使用E-Network-LSA，因为它目前的作用不仅仅是为连接到多址网络的路由器做广告。路由器的度量以及各个连接路由器的属性应在其各自的E-router-LSA中公布。第二个原因是，每个多址链路只有一个E-Network-LSA，链路状态ID设置为指定路由器的接口ID，因此，选择紧凑编码是为了降低在OSPFv3链路状态更新数据包中公布时，电子网络LSA的大小需要IPv6分段的可能性。
The Inter-Area-Prefix TLV defines a single OSPFV3 inter-area prefix. The field definitions correspond directly to the content of an OSPFv3 IPv6 Prefix, as defined in Appendix A.4.1 of [OSPFV3], and an OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, as defined in Appendix A.4.5 of [OSPFV3]. Additionally, the PrefixOptions are extended as described in Section 3.1. The Inter-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA (Section 4.3). Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
区域间前缀TLV定义单个OSPFV3区域间前缀。字段定义直接对应于[OSPFv3]附录A.4.1中定义的OSPFv3 IPv6前缀和[OSPFv3]附录A.4.5中定义的OSPFv3区域间前缀LSA的内容。此外，如第3.1节所述，扩展了前缀选项。区域间前缀TLV仅适用于E-区域间前缀-LSA（第4.3节）。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 (Inter-Area Prefix) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 (Inter-Area Prefix) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inter-Area-Prefix TLV
区域间前缀TLV
The Inter-Area-Router TLV defines a single OSPFv3 Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) that is reachable in another area. The field definitions correspond directly to the content of an OSPFv3 Inter-Area-Router-LSA, as defined in Appendix A.4.6 of [OSPFV3]. The Inter-Area-Router TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA (Section 4.4). Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
区域间路由器TLV定义了单个OSPFv3自治系统边界路由器（ASBR），该路由器可在另一个区域中访问。字段定义直接对应于[OSPFv3]附录A.4.6中定义的OSPFv3区域间路由器LSA的内容。区域间路由器TLV仅适用于E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA（第4.4节）。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 (Inter-Area Router) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 (Inter-Area Router) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inter-Area-Router TLV
区域间路由器
The External-Prefix TLV defines a single OSPFv3 external prefix. With the exception of omitted fields noted below, the field definitions correspond directly to the content of an OSPFv3 IPv6 Prefix, as defined in Appendix A.4.1 of [OSPFV3], and an OSPFv3 AS-External-LSA, as defined in Appendix A.4.7 of [OSPFV3]. The External-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-AS-External-LSA (Section 4.5) and the E-NSSA-LSA (Section 4.6). Additionally, the PrefixOptions are extended as described in Section 3.1. Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
外部前缀TLV定义单个OSPFv3外部前缀。除以下省略的字段外，字段定义直接对应于[OSPFv3]附录A.4.1中定义的OSPFv3 IPv6前缀的内容，以及[OSPFv3]附录A.4.7中定义的作为外部LSA的OSPFv3的内容。外部前缀TLV仅适用于E-AS-External-LSA（第4.5节）和E-NSSA-LSA（第4.6节）。此外，如第3.1节所述，扩展了前缀选项。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 5 (External Prefix) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |E| | | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 5 (External Prefix) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |E| | | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
External-Prefix TLV
外部前缀TLV
In the External-Prefix TLV, the optional IPv6/IPv4 Forwarding Address and External Route Tag are now sub-TLVs. Given the Referenced LS Type and Referenced Link State ID from the AS-External-LSA have never been used or even specified, they have been omitted from the External-Prefix TLV. If there were ever a requirement for a referenced LSA, it could be satisfied with a sub-TLV.
在外部前缀TLV中，可选的IPv6/IPv4转发地址和外部路由标记现在是子TLV。由于AS外部LSA中引用的LS类型和引用的链路状态ID从未使用过，甚至从未指定过，因此它们已从外部前缀TLV中省略。如果对参考LSA有任何要求，则可以使用子TLV来满足。
The following sub-TLVs are defined for optional inclusion in the External-Prefix TLV:
定义了以下子TLV，以可选地包含在外部前缀TLV中：
o 1 - IPv6-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV (Section 3.10)
o 1-IPv6转发地址子TLV（第3.10节）
o 2 - IPv4-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV (Section 3.11)
o 2-IPv4转发地址子TLV（第3.11节）
o 3 - Route-Tag sub-TLV (Section 3.12)
o 3-路线标签子TLV（第3.12节）
The Intra-Area-Prefix TLV defines a single OSPFv3 intra-area prefix. The field definitions correspond directly to the content of an OSPFv3 IPv6 Prefix, as defined in Appendix A.4.1 of [OSPFV3], and an OSPFv3 Link-LSA, as defined in Appendix A.4.9 of [OSPFV3]. The Intra-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA (Section 4.7) and the E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA (Section 4.8). Additionally, the PrefixOptions are extended as described in Section 3.1. Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
区域内前缀TLV定义单个OSPFv3区域内前缀。字段定义直接对应于[OSPFv3]附录A.4.1中定义的OSPFv3 IPv6前缀和[OSPFv3]附录A.4.9中定义的OSPFv3链路LSA的内容。区域内前缀TLV仅适用于E-Link-LSA（第4.7节）和E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA（第4.8节）。此外，如第3.1节所述，扩展了前缀选项。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6 (Intra-Area Prefix) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6 (Intra-Area Prefix) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Intra-Area-Prefix TLV
区域内前缀TLV
The IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV is to be used with IPv6 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. The IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA (Section 4.7). Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
IPv6链路本地地址TLV将与[OSPFV3-AF]中定义的IPv6地址系列一起使用。IPv6链路本地地址TLV仅适用于E-Link-LSA（第4.7节）。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 (IPv6 Local-Local Address) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- IPv6 Link-Local Interface Address -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 (IPv6 Local-Local Address) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- IPv6 Link-Local Interface Address -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV
IPv6链路本地地址TLV
The IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV is to be used with IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. The IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA (Section 4.7). Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored.
IPv4链路本地地址TLV将与[OSPFV3-AF]中定义的IPv4地址系列一起使用。IPv4链路本地地址TLV仅适用于E-Link-LSA（第4.7节）。必须忽略其他扩展LSA中的包含。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 8 (IPv4 Local-Local Address) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Link-Local Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 8 (IPv4 Local-Local Address) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Link-Local Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV
IPv4链路本地地址TLV
The IPv6-Forwarding-Address TLV has identical semantics to the optional forwarding address in Appendix A.4.7 of [OSPFV3]. The IPv6- Forwarding-Address TLV is applicable to the External-Prefix TLV (Section 3.6). Specification as a sub-TLV of other TLVs is not defined herein. The sub-TLV is optional and the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored.
IPv6转发地址TLV的语义与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.7中的可选转发地址相同。IPv6转发地址TLV适用于外部前缀TLV（第3.6节）。此处未定义作为其他TLV子TLV的规范。子TLV是可选的，第一个指定实例用作[OSPFV3]中定义的转发地址。必须忽略第一个实例之后的实例。
The IPv6-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv6 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families. The IPv6-Forwarding-Address TLV length must meet a minimum length (16 octets), or it will be considered malformed as described in Section 6.3.
IPv6转发地址TLV将与[OSPFV3-AF]中定义的IPv6地址系列一起使用。对于其他地址族，必须忽略它。IPv6转发地址TLV长度必须满足最小长度（16个八位字节），否则将视为第6.3节所述的格式错误。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 - Forwarding Address | sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Forwarding Address -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 - Forwarding Address | sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- Forwarding Address -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6-Forwarding-Address TLV
IPv6转发地址TLV
The IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV has identical semantics to the optional forwarding address in Appendix A.4.7 of [OSPFV3]. The IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV is applicable to the External-Prefix TLV (Section 3.6). Specification as a sub-TLV of other TLVs is not defined herein. The sub-TLV is optional, and the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored.
IPv4转发地址TLV与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.7中的可选转发地址具有相同的语义。IPv4转发地址TLV适用于外部前缀TLV（第3.6节）。此处未定义作为其他TLV子TLV的规范。子TLV是可选的，第一个指定实例用作[OSPFV3]中定义的转发地址。必须忽略第一个实例之后的实例。
The IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families. The IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV length must meet a minimum length (4 octets), or it will be considered malformed as described in Section 6.3.
IPv4转发地址TLV将与[OSPFV3-AF]中定义的IPv4地址系列一起使用。对于其他地址族，必须忽略它。IPv4转发地址TLV长度必须满足最小长度（4个八位字节），否则将视为第6.3节所述的格式错误。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 - Forwarding Address | sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 - Forwarding Address | sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV
IPv4转发地址TLV
The optional Route-Tag sub-TLV has identical semantics to the optional External Route Tag in Appendix A.4.7 of [OSPFV3]. The Route-Tag sub-TLV is applicable to the External-Prefix TLV (Section 3.6). Specification as a sub-TLV of other TLVs is not defined herein. The sub-TLV is optional, and the first specified instance is used as the Route Tag as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored.
可选路线标签子TLV的语义与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.7中的可选外部路线标签相同。路由标签子TLV适用于外部前缀TLV（第3.6节）。此处未定义作为其他TLV子TLV的规范。子TLV是可选的，第一个指定实例用作[OSPFV3]中定义的路由标记。必须忽略第一个实例之后的实例。
The Route-Tag TLV length must meet a minimum length (4 octets), or it will be considered malformed as described in Section 6.3.
路线标签TLV长度必须满足最小长度（4个八位字节），否则将视为第6.3节所述的格式错误。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 - Route Tag | sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 - Route Tag | sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Route-Tag Sub-TLV
路线标签子TLV
This section specifies the OSPFv3 Extended LSA formats and encoding. The Extended OSPFv3 LSAs corresponded directly to the original OSPFv3 LSAs specified in [OSPFV3].
本节规定了OSPFv3扩展LSA格式和编码。扩展的OSPFv3 LSA直接对应于[OSPFv3]中规定的原始OSPFv3 LSA。
The E-Router-LSA has an LS Type of 0xA021 and has the same base information content as the Router-LSA defined in Appendix A.4.3 of [OSPFV3]. However, unlike the existing Router-LSA, it is fully extensible and represented as TLVs.
E-Router-LSA的LS类型为0xA021，其基本信息内容与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.3中定义的路由器LSA相同。然而，与现有的路由器LSA不同，它是完全可扩展的，并表示为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
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x21 |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 |Nt|x|V|E|B| Options |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x21 |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 |Nt|x|V|E|B| Options |
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Extended Router-LSA
扩展路由器LSA
Other than having a different LS Type, all LSA Header fields are the same as defined for the Router-LSA. Initially, only the top-level Router-Link TLV (Section 3.2) is applicable, and an E-Router-LSA may include multiple Router-Link TLVs. Like the existing Router-LSA, the LSA length is used to determine the end of the LSA including any TLVs. Depending on the implementation, it is perfectly valid for an E-Router-LSA to not contain any Router-Link TLVs. However, this would imply that the OSPFv3 router doesn't have any adjacencies in the corresponding area and is forming an adjacency or adjacencies over an unnumbered link(s). Note that no E-Router-LSA stub link is advertised for an unnumbered link.
除了具有不同的LS类型之外，所有LSA头字段都与为路由器LSA定义的相同。最初，只有顶级路由器链路TLV（第3.2节）适用，并且E-Router-LSA可能包括多个路由器链路TLV。与现有路由器LSA一样，LSA长度用于确定LSA的末端，包括任何TLV。根据实施情况，E-Router-LSA不包含任何路由器链路TLV是完全有效的。然而，这意味着OSPFv3路由器在相应的区域中没有任何邻接，并且在未编号的链路上形成一个或多个邻接。请注意，对于未编号的链路，不会公布任何E-Router-LSA存根链路。
The E-Network-LSA has an LS Type of 0xA022 and has the same base information content as the Network-LSA defined in Appendix A.4.4 of [OSPFV3]. However, unlike the existing Network-LSA, it is fully extensible and represented as TLVs.
电子网络LSA的LS类型为0xA022，其基本信息内容与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.4中定义的网络LSA相同。但是，与现有的网络LSA不同，它是完全可扩展的，并表示为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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x22 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x22 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E-Network-LSA
电子网络
Other than having a different LS Type, all LSA Header fields are the same as defined for the Network-LSA. Like the existing Network-LSA, the LSA length is used to determine the end of the LSA including any TLVs. Initially, only the top-level Attached-Routers TLV (Section 3.3) is applicable. If the Attached-Router TLV is not included in the E-Network-LSA, it is treated as malformed as described in Section 5. Instances of the Attached-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored.
除了具有不同的LS类型之外，所有LSA头字段都与为网络LSA定义的相同。与现有网络LSA一样，LSA长度用于确定LSA的末端，包括任何TLV。最初，只有顶级连接路由器TLV（第3.3节）适用。如果连接的路由器TLV未包含在E-Network-LSA中，则按照第5节所述将其视为格式错误。必须忽略第一个之后连接的路由器TLV的实例。
The E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA has an LS Type of 0xA023 and has the same base information content as the Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA defined in Appendix A.4.5 of [OSPFV3]. However, unlike the existing Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, it is fully extensible and represented as TLVs.
E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA的LS类型为0xA023，其基本信息内容与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.5中定义的区域间前缀LSA相同。但是，与现有的区域间前缀LSA不同，它是完全可扩展的，并表示为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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x23 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x23 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA
E-区域间前缀-LSA
Other than having a different LS Type, all LSA Header fields are the same as defined for the Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA. In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Prefix LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Prefix TLV. This will facilitate migration and avoid changes to functions such as incremental Shortest Path First (SPF) computation.
除了具有不同的LS类型之外，所有LSA头字段都与为区域间前缀LSA定义的相同。为了保持与当前OSPFv3规范的兼容性和语义，每个区域间前缀LSA必须包含一个区域间前缀TLV。这将促进迁移，并避免对诸如增量最短路径优先（SPF）计算之类的函数进行更改。
Like the existing Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, the LSA length is used to determine the end of the LSA including any TLVs. Initially, only the top-level Inter-Area-Prefix TLV (Section 3.4) is applicable. If the Inter-Area-Prefix TLV is not included in the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, it is treated as malformed as described in Section 5. Instances of the Inter-Area-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored.
与现有的区域间前缀LSA一样，LSA长度用于确定LSA的末端，包括任何tlv。最初，仅顶级区域间前缀TLV（第3.4节）适用。如果E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA中未包含区域间前缀TLV，则按照第5节所述将其视为格式错误。必须忽略第一个前缀之后的区域间前缀TLV的实例。
The E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA has an LS Type of 0xA024 and has the same base information content as the Inter-Area-Router-LSA defined in Appendix A.4.6 of [OSPFV3]. However, unlike the Inter-Area-Router-LSA, it is fully extensible and represented as TLVs.
E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA的LS类型为0xA024，其基本信息内容与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.6中定义的区域间路由器LSA相同。然而，与区域间路由器LSA不同，它是完全可扩展的，并表示为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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA
E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA
Other than having a different LS Type, all LSA Header fields are the same as defined for the Inter-Area-Router-LSA. In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Router-LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Router TLV. This will facilitate migration and avoid changes to functions such as incremental SPF computation.
除了具有不同的LS类型之外，所有LSA头字段都与为区域间路由器LSA定义的相同。为了保持与当前OSPFv3规范的兼容性和语义，每个区域间路由器LSA必须包含一个区域间路由器TLV。这将有助于迁移，并避免对诸如增量SPF计算之类的函数进行更改。
Like the existing Inter-Area-Router-LSA, the LSA length is used to determine the end of the LSA including any TLVs. Initially, only the top-level Inter-Area-Router TLV (Section 3.5) is applicable. If the Inter-Area-Router TLV is not included in the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA, it is treated as malformed as described in Section 5. Instances of the Inter-Area-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored.
与现有的区域间路由器LSA一样，LSA长度用于确定LSA的末端，包括任何tlv。最初，只有顶级区域间路由器TLV（第3.5节）适用。如果E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA中不包括区域间路由器TLV，则按照第5节所述将其视为格式错误。必须忽略第一个之后的区域间路由器TLV实例。
The E-AS-External-LSA has an LS Type of 0xC025 and has the same base information content as the AS-External-LSA defined in Appendix A.4.7 of [OSPFV3]. However, unlike the existing AS-External-LSA, it is fully extensible and represented as TLVs.
E-AS-External-LSA的LS类型为0xC025，其基本信息内容与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.7中定义的AS外部LSA相同。但是，与现有的AS外部LSA不同，它是完全可扩展的，并表示为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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|1|0| 0x25 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|1|0| 0x25 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E-AS-External-LSA
E-AS-External-LSA
Other than having a different LS Type, all LSA Header fields are the same as defined for the AS-External-LSA. In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each LSA MUST contain a single External-Prefix TLV. This will facilitate migration and avoid changes to OSPFv3 functions such as incremental SPF computation.
除了具有不同的LS类型外，所有LSA头字段都与为as外部LSA定义的相同。为了保持与当前OSPFv3规范的兼容性和语义，每个LSA必须包含一个外部前缀TLV。这将有助于迁移，并避免对OSPFv3函数的更改，如增量SPF计算。
Like the existing AS-External-LSA, the LSA length is used to determine the end of the LSA including any TLVs. Initially, only the top-level External-Prefix TLV (Section 3.6) is applicable. If the External-Prefix TLV is not included in the E-External-AS-LSA, it is treated as malformed as described in Section 5. Instances of the External-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored.
与现有AS外部LSA一样，LSA长度用于确定LSA的末端，包括任何TLV。最初，只有顶级外部前缀TLV（第3.6节）适用。如果E-External-AS-LSA中未包含外部前缀TLV，则按照第5节所述将其视为格式错误。必须忽略第一个前缀之后的外部前缀TLV的实例。
The E-NSSA-LSA will have the same format and TLVs as the Extended AS-External-LSA (Section 4.5). This is the same relationship that exists between the NSSA-LSA, as defined in Appendix A.4.8 of [OSPFV3], and the AS-External-LSA. The NSSA-LSA will have type 0xA027, which implies area flooding scope. Future requirements may dictate that supported TLVs differ between the E-AS-External-LSA and the E-NSSA-LSA. However, future requirements are beyond the scope of this document.
E-NSSA-LSA的格式和TLV与扩展为外部LSA的格式和TLV相同（第4.5节）。这与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.8中定义的NSSA-LSA和as外部LSA之间存在的关系相同。NSSA-LSA的类型为0xA027，这意味着区域洪水范围。未来的需求可能会规定受支持的TLV在E-AS-External-LSA和E-NSSA-LSA之间有所不同。但是，未来的要求超出了本文件的范围。
The E-Link-LSA has an LS Type of 0x8028 and will have the same base information content as the Link-LSA defined in Appendix A.4.9 of [OSPFV3]. However, unlike the existing Link-LSA, it is fully extensible and represented as TLVs.
E-Link-LSA的LS类型为0x8028，其基本信息内容与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.9中定义的链路LSA相同。但是，与现有的链路LSA不同，它是完全可扩展的，并表示为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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|0| 0x28 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rtr Priority | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|0| 0x28 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rtr Priority | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E-Link-LSA
E-Link-LSA
Other than having a different LS Type, all LSA Header fields are the same as defined for the Link-LSA.
除了具有不同的LS类型外，所有LSA头字段都与为链接LSA定义的相同。
Only the Intra-Area-Prefix TLV (Section 3.7), IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV (Section 3.8), and IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV (Section 3.9) are applicable to the E-Link-LSA. Like the Link-LSA, the E-Link-LSA
只有区域内前缀TLV（第3.7节）、IPv6链路本地地址TLV（第3.8节）和IPv4链路本地地址TLV（第3.9节）适用于E-Link-LSA。像Link-LSA一样，E-Link-LSA
affords advertisement of multiple intra-area prefixes. Hence, multiple Intra-Area-Prefix TLVs (Section 3.7) may be specified, and the LSA length defines the end of the LSA including any TLVs.
提供多个区域内前缀的广告。因此，可以指定多个区域内前缀TLV（第3.7节），并且LSA长度定义LSA的末端，包括任何TLV。
A single instance of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV (Section 3.8) SHOULD be included in the E-Link-LSA. Instances following the first MUST be ignored. For IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF], this TLV MUST be ignored.
E-Link-LSA中应包含IPv6链路本地地址TLV的单个实例（第3.8节）。必须忽略第一个之后的实例。对于[OSPFV3-AF]中定义的IPv4地址系列，必须忽略此TLV。
Similarly, only a single instance of the IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV (Section 3.9) SHOULD be included in the E-Link-LSA. Instances following the first MUST be ignored. For OSPFv3 IPv6 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF], this TLV SHOULD be ignored.
类似地，E-Link-LSA中只应包括IPv4链路本地地址TLV的单个实例（第3.9节）。必须忽略第一个之后的实例。对于[OSPFv3-AF]中定义的OSPFv3 IPv6地址系列，应忽略此TLV。
If the IPv4/IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV corresponding to the OSPFv3 Address Family is not included in the E-Link-LSA, it is treated as malformed as described in Section 5.
如果与OSPFv3地址系列对应的IPv4/IPv6链路本地地址TLV未包含在E-Link-LSA中，则将其视为格式错误，如第5节所述。
Future specifications may support advertisement of routing and topology information for multiple address families. However, this is beyond the scope of this document.
未来的规范可能支持为多个地址族发布路由和拓扑信息。但是，这超出了本文件的范围。
The E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA has an LS Type of 0xA029 and has the same base information content as the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA defined in Appendix A.4.10 of [OSPFV3] except for the Referenced LS Type. However, unlike the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, it is fully extensible and represented as TLVs. The Referenced LS Type MUST be either an E-Router-LSA (0xA021) or an E-Network-LSA (0xA022).
E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA的LS类型为0xA029，其基本信息内容与[OSPFV3]附录A.4.10中定义的区域内前缀LSA相同，但参考的LS类型除外。但是，与区域内前缀LSA不同，它是完全可扩展的，并表示为TLV。引用的LS类型必须是E-Router-LSA（0xA021）或E-Network-LSA（0xA022）。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x29 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Referenced LS Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Referenced Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Referenced Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Age |1|0|1| 0x29 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Referenced LS Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Referenced Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Referenced Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
E-区域内-前缀-LSA
Other than having a different LS Type, all LSA Header fields are the same as defined for the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA.
除了具有不同的LS类型之外，所有LSA头字段都与为区域内前缀LSA定义的相同。
Like the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, the E-Intra-Area-Link-LSA affords advertisement of multiple intra-area prefixes. Hence, multiple Intra-Area-Prefix TLVs may be specified, and the LSA length defines the end of the LSA including any TLVs.
与区域内前缀LSA类似，E-Intra-Area-Link-LSA提供多个区域内前缀的广告。因此，可以指定多个区域内前缀tlv，并且LSA长度定义包括任何tlv的LSA的末端。
Extended LSAs that have inconsistent length or other encoding errors, as described herein, MUST NOT be installed in the Link State Database, acknowledged, or flooded. Reception of malformed LSAs SHOULD be counted and/or logged for examination by the administrator of the OSPFv3 routing domain. Note that for the purposes of length validation, a TLV or sub-TLV should not be considered invalid unless the length exceeds the length of the LSA or does not meet the minimum length requirements for the TLV or sub-TLV. This allows for sub-TLVs to be added as described in Section 6.3.
如本文所述，具有不一致长度或其他编码错误的扩展LSA不得安装在链路状态数据库中、被确认或被淹没。OSPFv3路由域的管理员应统计和/或记录收到的错误LSA，以供检查。注意，出于长度验证的目的，TLV或子TLV不应被视为无效，除非长度超过LSA的长度或不满足TLV或子TLV的最小长度要求。这允许按照第6.3节所述添加子TLV。
Additionally, an LSA MUST be considered malformed if it does not include all of the required TLVs and sub-TLVs.
此外，如果LSA未包含所有必需的TLV和子TLV，则必须将其视为格式错误。
In the context of this document, backward compatibility is solely related to the capability of an OSPFv3 router to receive, process, and originate the TLV-based LSAs defined herein. Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs are ignored. Backward compatibility for future OSPFv3 extensions utilizing the TLV-based LSAs is out of scope and must be covered in the documents describing those extensions. Both full and, if applicable, partial deployment SHOULD be specified for future TLV-based OSPFv3 LSA extensions.
在本文档的上下文中，向后兼容性仅与OSPFv3路由器接收、处理和发起本文定义的基于TLV的LSA的能力有关。忽略无法识别的TLV和子TLV。使用基于TLV的LSA的未来OSPFv3扩展的向后兼容性超出范围，必须在描述这些扩展的文档中介绍。应为未来基于TLV的OSPFv3 LSA扩展指定完全部署和部分部署（如适用）。
If ExtendedLSASupport is enabled (Appendix A), OSPFv3 Extended LSAs will be originated and used for the SPF computation. Individual OSPF Areas can be migrated separately with the Legacy AS-External-LSAs being originated and used for the SPF computation. This is accomplished by enabling AreaExtendedLSASupport (Appendix B).
如果启用了ExtendedLSASupport（附录A），则将发起OSPFv3扩展LSA并用于SPF计算。单独的OSPF区域可以单独迁移，遗留区域作为外部LSA被发起并用于SPF计算。这是通过启用AreaExtendedLSASupport（附录B）实现的。
An OSPFv3 routing domain or area may be non-disruptively migrated using separate OSPFv3 instances for the Extended LSAs. Initially, the OSPFv3 instances with ExtendedLSASupport will have a lower preference, i.e., higher administrative distance, than the OSPFv3 instances originating and using the Legacy LSAs. Once the routing domain or area is fully migrated and the OSPFv3 Routing Information Bases (RIBs) have been verified, the OSPFv3 instances using the Extended LSAs can be given preference. When this has been completed and the routing within the OSPF routing domain or area has been verified, the original OSPFv3 instance using Legacy LSAs can be removed.
OSPFv3路由域或区域可以使用扩展LSA的单独OSPFv3实例进行无中断迁移。最初，具有ExtendedLSASupport的OSPFv3实例将比原始和使用传统LSA的OSPFv3实例具有更低的首选项，即更高的管理距离。一旦路由域或区域被完全迁移并且OSPFv3路由信息库（RIB）被验证，则可以优先考虑使用扩展LSA的OSPFv3实例。完成此操作并验证OSPF路由域或区域内的路由后，可以删除使用传统LSA的原始OSPFv3实例。
In this mode, OSPFv3 will use the Legacy LSAs for the SPF computation and will only originate Extended LSAs when LSA origination is required in support of additional functionality. Furthermore, those Extended LSAs will only include the top-level TLVs (e.g., Router-Link TLVs or Inter-Area TLVs), which are required for that new functionality. However, if a top-level TLV is advertised, it MUST include required sub-TLVs, or it will be considered malformed as described in Section 5. Hence, this mode of compatibility is known as "sparse-mode". The advantage of sparse-mode is that functionality utilizing the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs can be added to an existing OSPFv3 routing domain without the requirement for migration. In essence, this compatibility mode is very much like the approach taken for OSPFv2 [OSPF-PREFIX-LINK]. As with all the compatibility modes, backward compatibility for the functions utilizing the Extended LSAs must be described in the IETF documents describing those functions.
在此模式下，OSPFv3将使用传统LSA进行SPF计算，并且仅在需要LSA发起以支持其他功能时才会发起扩展LSA。此外，这些扩展的LSA将仅包括该新功能所需的顶级TLV（例如，路由器链路TLV或区域间TLV）。但是，如果发布顶级TLV，则必须包含所需的子TLV，否则将视为第5节中所述的格式错误。因此，这种兼容模式被称为“稀疏模式”。稀疏模式的优点是，利用OSPFv3扩展LSA的功能可以添加到现有OSPFv3路由域，而无需迁移。本质上，这种兼容模式非常类似于OSPFv2[OSPF-PREFIX-LINK]所采用的方法。与所有兼容模式一样，使用扩展LSA的功能的向后兼容性必须在描述这些功能的IETF文档中描述。
This section defines the general rules for processing LSA TLVs. To ensure compatibility of future TLV-based LSA extensions, all implementations MUST adhere to these rules:
本节定义了处理LSA TLV的一般规则。为确保未来基于TLV的LSA扩展的兼容性，所有实现必须遵守以下规则：
1. Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs are ignored when parsing or processing Extended LSAs.
1. 解析或处理扩展LSA时，将忽略无法识别的TLV和子TLV。
2. Whether or not partial deployment of a given TLV is supported MUST be specified.
2. 必须指定是否支持给定TLV的部分部署。
3. If partial deployment is not supported, mechanisms to ensure the corresponding feature is not deployed MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV.
3. 如果不支持部分部署，则必须在定义新TLV或子TLV的文档中指定确保未部署相应功能的机制。
4. If partial deployment is supported, backward compatibility and partial deployment MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV.
4. 如果支持部分部署，则必须在定义新TLV或子TLV的文档中指定向后兼容性和部分部署。
5. If a TLV or sub-TLV is recognized but the length is less than the minimum, then the LSA should be considered malformed, and it SHOULD NOT be acknowledged. Additionally, the occurrence SHOULD be logged with enough information to identify the LSA by type, Link State ID, originator, and sequence number and identify the TLV or sub-TLV in error. Ideally, the log entry would include the hexadecimal or binary representation of the LSA including the malformed TLV or sub-TLV.
5. 如果识别TLV或子TLV，但长度小于最小值，则LSA应被视为格式错误，且不应被确认。此外，事件应记录足够的信息，以按类型、链路状态ID、发起者和序列号识别LSA，并识别出错的TLV或子TLV。理想情况下，日志条目将包括LSA的十六进制或二进制表示，包括格式错误的TLV或子TLV。
6. Documents specifying future TLVs or Sub-TLVs MUST specify the requirements for usage of those TLVs or sub-TLVs.
6. 指定未来TLV或子TLV的文件必须指定这些TLV或子TLV的使用要求。
7. Future TLVs or sub-TLVs must be optional. However, there may be requirements for sub-TLVs if an optional TLV is specified.
7. 未来TLV或子TLV必须是可选的。但是，如果指定了可选TLV，则可能需要子TLV。
In general, extensible OSPFv3 LSAs are subject to the same security concerns as those described in RFC 5340 [OSPFV3]. Additionally, implementations must assure that malformed TLV and sub-TLV permutations do not result in errors that cause hard OSPFv3 failures.
一般来说，可扩展OSPFv3 LSA与RFC 5340[OSPFv3]中描述的安全问题相同。此外，实现必须确保格式错误的TLV和子TLV排列不会导致导致硬OSPFv3故障的错误。
If there were ever a requirement to digitally sign OSPFv3 LSAs as described for OSPFv2 LSAs in RFC 2154 [OSPF-DIGITAL-SIGNATURE], the mechanisms described herein would greatly simplify the extension.
如果曾经要求对OSPFv3 LSA进行数字签名，如RFC 2154[OSPF-数字签名]中对OSPFv2 LSA所述，则本文所述的机制将大大简化扩展。
This specification defines nine OSPFv3 Extended LSA types as described in Section 2. These have been added to the existing OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes registry.
本规范定义了九种OSPFv3扩展LSA类型，如第2节所述。这些已添加到现有OSPFv3 LSA功能代码注册表中。
The specification defines a code point for the N-bit in the OSPFv3 Prefix-Options registry. The value 0x20 has been assigned.
该规范在OSPFv3前缀选项注册表中定义了N位的代码点。已分配值0x20。
This specification also creates two registries for OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLVs and sub-TLVs. The TLV and sub-TLV code points in these registries are common to all Extended LSAs, and their respective definitions must define where they are applicable.
本规范还为OSPFv3扩展LSA TLV和子TLV创建了两个注册表。这些注册中心中的TLV和子TLV代码点对于所有扩展LSA都是通用的，它们各自的定义必须定义适用的地方。
The "OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLVs" registry defines top-level TLVs for Extended LSAs and has been placed in the existing OSPFv3 IANA registry.
“OSPFv3扩展LSA TLV”注册表为扩展LSA定义顶级TLV，并已放置在现有OSPFv3 IANA注册表中。
Nine values have been allocated:
分配了九个值：
o 0 - Reserved
o 0-保留
o 1 - Router-Link TLV
o 1-路由器链路TLV
o 2 - Attached-Routers TLV
o 2-连接路由器TLV
o 3 - Inter-Area-Prefix TLV
o 3-区域间前缀TLV
o 4 - Inter-Area-Router TLV
o 4-区域间路由器TLV
o 5 - External-Prefix TLV
o 5-外部前缀TLV
o 6 - Intra-Area-Prefix TLV
o 6-区域内前缀TLV
o 7 - IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV
o 7-IPv6链路本地地址TLV
o 8 - IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV
o 8-IPv4链路本地地址TLV
Types in the range 9-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC8126].
9-32767范围内的类型通过IETF审查或IESG批准[RFC8126]进行分配。
Types in the range 32768-33023 are Reserved for Experimental Use; these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
32768-33023范围内的类型保留供实验使用；这些将不会在IANA注册，RFC不得提及。
Types in the range 33024-45055 are to be assigned on a First Come First Served (FCFS) basis.
33024-45055范围内的类型以先到先得（FCFS）的方式分配。
Types in the range 45056-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned.
此时不分配范围为45056-65535的类型。在33024-65535范围内进行任何分配之前，必须有一个IETF规范，其中规定了涵盖所分配范围的IANA注意事项。
The "OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs" registry defines sub-TLVs at any level of nesting for Extended LSAs and has been placed in the existing OSPFv3 IANA registry.
“OSPFv3扩展LSA子TLV”注册表定义了扩展LSA任何嵌套级别的子TLV，并已放置在现有OSPFv3 IANA注册表中。
Four values have been allocated:
分配了四个值：
o 0 - Reserved
o 0-保留
o 1 - IPv6-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV
o 1-IPv6转发地址子TLV
o 2 - IPv4-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV
o 2-IPv4转发地址子TLV
o 3 - Route-Tag sub-TLV
o 3-路线标签子TLV
Types in the range 4-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval.
4-32767范围内的类型通过IETF审查或IESG批准进行分配。
Types in the range 32768-33023 are Reserved for Experimental Use; these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
32768-33023范围内的类型保留供实验使用；这些将不会在IANA注册，RFC不得提及。
Types in the range 33024-45055 are to be assigned on an FCFS basis.
33024-45055范围内的类型将根据FCFS进行分配。
Types in the range 45056-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned.
此时不分配范围为45056-65535的类型。在33024-65535范围内进行任何分配之前，必须有一个IETF规范，其中规定了涵盖所分配范围的IANA注意事项。
[NSSA] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
[NSSA]Murphy，P.，“OSPF不那么短的区域（NSSA）选项”，RFC 3101，DOI 10.17487/RFC3101，2003年1月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[OSPFV3]Coltun，R.，Ferguson，D.，Moy，J.，和A.Lindem，“IPv6的OSPF”，RFC 5340，DOI 10.17487/RFC5340，2008年7月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[OSPFV3-AF] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
[OSPFV3-AF]Lindem，A.，Ed.，Mirtorabi，S.，Roy，A.，Barnes，M.，和R.Aggarwal，“OSPFV3中地址家庭的支持”，RFC 5838，DOI 10.17487/RFC5838，2010年4月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
[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>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8126]Cotton，M.，Leiba，B.，和T.Narten，“在RFC中编写IANA考虑事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 8126，DOI 10.17487/RFC8126，2017年6月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
[RFC8174]Leiba，B.，“RFC 2119关键词中大写与小写的歧义”，BCP 14，RFC 8174，DOI 10.17487/RFC8174，2017年5月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[TE]Katz，D.，Kompella，K.，和D.Yeung，“OSPF版本2的交通工程（TE）扩展”，RFC 3630，DOI 10.17487/RFC3630，2003年9月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[IPV6-ADDRESS-ARCH] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[IPV6-ADDRESS-ARCH]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IP版本6寻址体系结构”，RFC 4291，DOI 10.17487/RFC42912006年2月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[MT-OSPFV3] Mirtorabi, S. and A. Roy, "Multi-topology routing in OSPFv3 (MT-OSPFv3)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3-03, July 2007.
[MT-OSPFV3]Mirtorabi，S.和A.Roy，“OSPFV3中的多拓扑路由（MT-OSPFV3）”，正在进行的工作，草稿-ietf-ospf-MT-OSPFV3-032007年7月。
[OSPF-DIGITAL-SIGNATURE] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, DOI 10.17487/RFC2154, June 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2154>.
[OSPF-数字签名]Murphy，S.，Badger，M.，和B.Wellington，“具有数字签名的OSPF”，RFC 2154，DOI 10.17487/RFC2154，1997年6月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2154>.
[OSPF-PREFIX-LINK] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[OSPF-PREFIX-LINK]Psenak，P.，Gredler，H.，Shakir，R.，Henderickx，W.，Tantsura，J.，和A.Lindem，“OSPFv2前缀/链接属性广告”，RFC 7684，DOI 10.17487/RFC7684，2015年11月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[SEGMENT-ROUTING] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-11, January 2018.
[网段路由]Psenak，P.，Previdi，S.，Filsfils，C.，Gredler，H.，Shakir，R.，Henderickx，W.，和J.Tantsura，“网段路由的OSPFv3扩展”，正在进行中的工作，草案-ietf-ospf-OSPFv3-网段路由扩展-11，2018年1月。
The global configurable parameter ExtendedLSASupport is added to the OSPFv3 protocol. If ExtendedLSASupport is enabled, the OSPFv3 router will originate OSPFv3 Extended LSAs and use the LSAs for the SPF computation. If ExtendedLSASupport is not enabled, a subset of OSPFv3 Extended LSAs may still be originated and used for other functions as described in Section 6.2.
OSPFv3协议中添加了全局可配置参数ExtendedLSASupport。如果启用扩展LSA支持，OSPFv3路由器将发起OSPFv3扩展LSA，并使用LSA进行SPF计算。如果未启用ExtendedLSASupport，OSPFv3扩展LSA的一个子集仍可能被发起并用于第6.2节所述的其他功能。
The area configurable parameter AreaExtendedLSASupport is added to the OSPFv3 protocol. If AreaExtendedLSASupport is enabled, the OSPFv3 router will originate link and area OSPFv3 Extended LSAs and use the LSAs for the SPF computation. Legacy AS-Scoped LSAs will still be originated and used for the AS-External-LSA computation. If AreaExtendedLSASupport is not enabled, a subset of OSPFv3 link and area Extended LSAs may still be originated and used for other functions as described in Section 6.2.
将区域可配置参数AreaExtendedLSASupport添加到OSPFv3协议中。如果启用了AreaExtendedLSASupport，OSPFv3路由器将发起链路和区域OSPFv3扩展LSA，并使用LSA进行SPF计算。遗留AS作用域LSA仍将被发起并用于AS外部LSA计算。如果未启用AreaExtendedLSA支持，OSPFv3链路和area ExtendedLSA的一个子集仍可发起并用于第6.2节所述的其他功能。
For regular areas, i.e., areas where AS-scoped LSAs are flooded, disabling AreaExtendedLSASupport for a regular OSPFv3 area (not a Stub or NSSA area) when ExtendedLSASupport is enabled is contradictory and SHOULD be prohibited by implementations.
对于常规区域，即AS作用域LSA被淹没的区域，当启用ExtendedLSASupport时，为常规OSPFv3区域（不是存根或NSSA区域）禁用AreaExtendedLSASupport是矛盾的，应被实施禁止。
Acknowledgments
致谢
OSPFv3 TLV-based LSAs were first proposed in "Multi-topology routing in OSPFv3 (MT-OSPFv3)" [MT-OSPFV3].
基于OSPFv3 TLV的LSA最早是在“OSPFv3中的多拓扑路由（MT-OSPFv3）”[MT-OSPFv3]中提出的。
Thanks for Peter Psenak for significant contributions to the backward-compatibility mechanisms.
感谢Peter Psenak对向后兼容性机制做出的重大贡献。
Thanks go to Michael Barnes, Mike Dubrovsky, Anton Smirnov, and Tony Przygienda for review of the draft versions and discussions of backward compatibility.
感谢Michael Barnes、Mike Dubrovsky、Anton Smirnov和Tony Przygienda对草案版本的审查和向后兼容性的讨论。
Thanks to Alan Davey for review and comments including the suggestion to separate the Extended LSA TLV definitions from the Extended LSAs definitions.
感谢Alan Davey的审查和评论，包括将扩展LSA TLV定义与扩展LSA定义分开的建议。
Thanks to David Lamparter for review and suggestions on backward compatibility.
感谢David Lamparter对向后兼容性的评论和建议。
Thanks to Karsten Thomann, Chris Bowers, Meng Zhang, and Nagendra Kumar for review and editorial comments.
感谢Karsten Thomann、Chris Bowers、Meng Zhang和Nagendra Kumar的评论和编辑评论。
Thanks to Alia Atlas for substantive Routing Area Director (AD) comments prior to IETF last call.
感谢Alia Atlas在IETF最后一次呼叫之前提供的实质性路由区域主任（AD）意见。
Thanks to Alvaro Retana and Suresh Krishnan for substantive comments during IESG Review.
感谢Alvaro Retana和Suresh Krishnan在IESG审查期间提出的实质性意见。
Thanks to Mehmet Ersue for the Operations and Management (OPS) Directorate review.
感谢Mehmet Ersue进行运营管理（OPS）董事会审查。
Contributors
贡献者
Sina Mirtorabi Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 United States of America
新浪Mirtorabi思科系统美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞塔斯曼大道170号，邮编95134
Email: sina@cisco.com
Email: sina@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Acee Lindem Cisco Systems 301 Midenhall Way Cary, NC 27513 United States of America
Acee Lindem思科系统301美国北卡罗来纳州米登霍尔大道卡里27513号
Email: acee@cisco.com
Email: acee@cisco.com
Abhay Roy Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 United States of America
美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞塔斯曼大道170号，邮编95134
Email: akr@cisco.com
Email: akr@cisco.com
Dirk Goethals Nokia Copernicuslaan 50 Antwerp 2018 Belgium
Dirk Goethals诺基亚哥白尼50安特卫普2018比利时
Email: dirk.goethals@nokia.com
Email: dirk.goethals@nokia.com
Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem Bangalore India
印度班加罗尔Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
Email: vallem.veerendra@gmail.com
Email: vallem.veerendra@gmail.com
Fred Baker Santa Barbara, California 93117 United States of America
加利福尼亚州圣巴巴拉市弗雷德·贝克93117美利坚合众国
Email: FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com
Email: FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com