RFC 9825: Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
It is useful for routers in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 routing domains to be able to associate tags with prefixes. Previously, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag and only for Autonomous System (AS) External and Not-So-Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended Link State Advertisements (LSAs), multiple administrative tags may be advertised for all types of prefixes. These administrative tags can be used for many applications including route redistribution policy, selective prefix prioritization, selective IP Fast Reroute (IPFRR) prefix protection, and many others.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9825
- Published
- July 2025
- Authors
- A. Lindem; P. Psenak; Y. Qu
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 18
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9826A YANG Data Model for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)Current
September 2025
- RFC 9830Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGPCurrent
September 2025
- RFC 9831Segment Type Extensions for BGP Segment Routing (SR) PolicyCurrent
September 2025
- RFC 9819Argument Signaling for BGP Services in Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)Current
July 2025
- RFC 9832BGP Classful Transport PlanesCurrent
September 2025
- RFC 9816Usage and Applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data CentersCurrent
July 2025
- RFC 9815BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) RoutingCurrent
July 2025
- RFC 9843IGP Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics, and ConstraintsUpdated
September 2025
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?