<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version  -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>

<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-12" category="std" consensus="true">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP Extensions for Multipath">PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information</title>

    <author initials="M." surname="Koldychev" fullname="Mike Koldychev">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <email>mkoldych@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Sivabalan" fullname="Siva Sivabalan">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ssivabal@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="T." surname="Saad" fullname="Tarek Saad">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>tsaad@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="V." surname="Beeram" fullname="Vishnu Pavan Beeram">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>vbeeram@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="H." surname="Bidgoli" fullname="Hooman Bidgoli">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>
      <address>
        <email>hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="B." surname="Yadav" fullname="Bhupendra Yadav">
      <organization>Ciena</organization>
      <address>
        <email>byadav@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Peng" fullname="Shuping Peng">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>pengshuping@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="G." surname="Mishra" fullname="Gyan Mishra">
      <organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2024" month="October" day="09"/>

    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    

    <abstract>


<t>Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require solutions that
consist of multiple traffic paths, that together form a solution.
Returning just one single traffic path does not provide a valid solution.
This document defines mechanisms to encode multiple paths for a single set of
objectives and constraints.
This allows encoding of multiple Segment Lists per
Candidate Path within a Segment Routing Policy.
The new PCEP mechanisms are meant to be generic, where possible,
to allow for future re-use outside of SR Policy.
The new PCEP mechanisms are applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP.</t>



    </abstract>



  </front>

  <middle>


<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">

<t>Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering
<xref target="RFC9256"/> details the concepts of SR
Policy and approaches to steering traffic into an SR Policy.  In
particular, it describes the SR candidate-path as a collection of one
or more Segment-Lists.  The current PCEP standards only allow for
signaling of one Segment-List per Candidate-Path.  PCEP extension to
support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> specifically avoids
defining how to signal multiple Segment-Lists.</t>

<t>This document defines the required extensions that allow the signaling
of multipath information via PCEP. Although these extensions are
motivated by the SR Policy use case, they are also applicable
to other data plane types.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="terminology" title="Terminology">

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

<section anchor="terms-and-abbreviations" title="Terms and Abbreviations">

<t>The following terms are used in this document:</t>

<t>ECMP:</t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>Equal Cost Multi Path, equally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where each path/link gets the same share of traffic as others.</t>
</list></t>

<t>W-ECMP:</t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>Weighted ECMP, un-equally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where some paths/links get more traffic than others.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="motivation" title="Motivation">

<t>This extension is motivated by the use-cases described below.</t>

<section anchor="signaling-multiple-segment-lists-of-an-sr-candidate-path" title="Signaling Multiple Segment-Lists of an SR Candidate-Path">

<t>The Candidate-Path of an SR Policy is the unit of signaling in PCEP, see
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>.  Each Candidate-Path can
contain multiple Segment-Lists and each Segment-List is encoded by
one ERO.  However, each PCEP LSP can contain only a
single ERO, which prevents us from encoding multiple Segment-Lists 
within the same SR Candidate-Path.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="splitting-of-requested-bandwidth" title="Splitting of Requested Bandwidth">

<t>A PCC may request a path with 80 Gbps of bandwidth, but all links in the
network have only 60 Gbps capacity.  The PCE can return two paths, that can
together carry 80 Gbps. The PCC can then equally or unequally split the incoming
80 Gbps of traffic among the two paths. <xref target="WEIGHT-TLV"/> introduces a
new TLV that carries the path weight that facilitates control of load-balancing
of traffic among the multiple paths.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="reverse-path-information" title="Reverse Path Information">

<t>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated 
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) <xref target="RFC9059"/> defines a mechanism in PCEP
to associate two opposite direction SR Policy Candidate Paths. 
However, within each Candidate Path there can be multiple Segment-Lists,
and <xref target="RFC9059"/> does not define a mechanism to specify Segment-List to Segment-List
mapping between the forward and reverse Candidate Paths.
Certain applications such as Circuit Style SR Policy <xref target="I-D.schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy"/>,
require the knowledge of reverse path(s) per Segment-List, not just per Candidate path.
For example, when the headend knows the reverse Segment-List for each forward Segment-List, 
then PM/BFD can run a separate session on every Segment-List, 
by imposing a double stack (forward stack followed by reverse stack) on the packet.
If the reverse Segment-List is co-routed with the forward Segment-List, then 
the PM/BFD session would traverse the same links in the forward and reverse directions,
thus allowing to detect link/node failures in both directions.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="protocol-extensions" title="Protocol Extensions">

<section anchor="path-attributes-object" title="Path Attributes Object">

<t>We define the PATH-ATTRIB object that is used to carry per-path
information and to act as a separator between several ERO/RRO objects
in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt; RBNF element.
The PATH-ATTRIB object always precedes the ERO/RRO that it applies to.  If
multiple ERO/RRO objects are present, then each ERO/RRO object MUST be
preceded by an PATH-ATTRIB object that describes it.</t>

<t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Class value is (45).</t>

<t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Type value is 1.</t>

<figure title="PATH-ATTRIB object format" anchor="fig-path-attrib"><artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Flags                         |R|  O  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Path ID                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  ~                          Optional TLVs                        ~
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>O (Operational - 3 bits): operational state of the path, same 
values as the identically named field in the LSP object <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>

<t>R (Reverse): Indicates this path is reverse,
i.e., it
originates on the LSP destination and terminates on the
LSP source (usually the PCC headend itself).
Paths with this flag set serve only informational
purpose to the PCC.</t>

<t>Path ID: 4-octet identifier that identifies a path (encoded in the 
ERO/RRO) within the set of multiple paths under the PCEP LSP.
See <xref target="PATH-ID"/> for details.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="METRIC" title="Metric">

<t>The PCEP METRIC object can continue to be used at the LSP level.
The metric value encoded into the LSP level METRIC object SHOULD be
the maximum value of all the per PATH metrics.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="WEIGHT-TLV" title="Multipath Weight TLV">

<t>New MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>

<figure title="MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV format" anchor="fig-multipath-weight"><artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                             Weight                            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Type: (61) for “MULTIPATH-WEIGHT” TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>Weight: weight of this path within the multipath, if W-ECMP is
desired. The fraction of flows a specific ERO/RRO carries is derived
from the ratio of its weight to the sum of all other multipath ERO/RRO weights.</t>

<t>When the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is absent from the PATH-ATTRIB object,
or the PATH-ATTRIB object is absent from the
&lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;, then the Weight of the corresponding
path is taken to be “1”.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="BACKUP-TLV" title="Multipath Backup TLV">

<t>New MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>

<t>This TLV is used to specify protecting standby path(s),
for each ECMP path within a PCEP LSP.
This is similar to path protection, but works at the ECMP path level
instead of at the PCEP LSP level.
This functionality is not part of the SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/>,
but is something optional that MAY be implemented for certain 
specialized use cases.</t>

<figure title="MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV format" anchor="fig-multipath-backup"><artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |       Backup Path Count       |             Flags           |B|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 1                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                              ...                              |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID n                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Type: (62) for “MULTIPATH-BACKUP” TLV</t>

<t>Length: 4 + (N * 4) (where N is the Backup Path Count)</t>

<t>Backup Path Count: Number of backup path(s).</t>

<t>B: If set, indicates a pure backup path. This is a path that only
carries rerouted traffic after the protected path fails. If this flag
is not set, or if the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is absent,
then the path is assumed to be primary that
carries normal traffic.</t>

<t>Backup Path ID(s): a series of 4-octet identifier(s) that identify the
backup path(s) in the set that protect this primary path.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="OPPDIR-PATH-TLV" title="Multipath Opposite Direction Path TLV">

<t>New MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.
Multiple instances of the TLV are allowed in the same PATH-ATTRIB object.
This TLV encodes a many-to-many mapping between forward and reverse
paths.</t>

<t>Many-to-many mapping means that a single forward path MAY map
to multiple reverse paths and conversely that a single reverse
path MAY map to multiple forward paths.
Many-to-many mapping can happen for an SR Policy,
when a Segment-List contains Node Segment(s)
which traverse parallel links at the midpoint.
The reverse of this Segment-List may not be able to be expressed as a single
Reverse Segment-List, but need to return multiple Reverse Segment-Lists
to cover all the parallel links at the midpoint.</t>

<figure title="MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV format" anchor="fig-multipath-oppdir"><artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |        Reserved (MBZ)         |             Flags         |L|N|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                 Opposite Direction Path ID                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Type: (63) for “MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH” TLV</t>

<t>Length: 16.</t>

<t>N (Node co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
node co-routed with
its opposite direction path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are node co-routed if they
traverse the same nodes,
but MAY traverse different links.</t>

<t>L (Link co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
link co-routed with
its opposite directions path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are link co-routed if they
traverse the same links (but in the opposite directions).</t>

<t>Opposite Direction Path ID: Identifies a path that
goes in the opposite direction to this path.
If no such path exists, then this field MUST be set to 0x0,
which is reserved to indicate the absense of a Path ID.</t>

<t>Multiple instances of this TLV
present in the same PATH-ATTRIB object indicate that there are multiple
opposite-direction paths corresponding to the given path. This allows for
many-to-many relationship among the paths of two opposite direction LSPs.</t>

<t>Whenever path A references another path B as being the
opposite-direction path, then path B SHOULD also reference path A as its
own opposite-direction path.
Furthermore, their values of the R-flag (Reverse) in the PATH-ATTRIB
object MUST have opposite values.</t>

<t>See <xref target="OPPDIREX"/> for an example of usage.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="CCP" title="Composite Candidate Path">

<t>SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/> defines the concept of a
Composite Candidate Path. 
A regular SR Policy Candidate Path outputs traffic to a set of Segment-Lists, 
while an SR Policy Composite Candidate Path outputs traffic recursively to 
a set of SR Policies on the same headend.
In PCEP, the Composite Candidate Path still consists of PATH-ATTRIB objects,
but ERO is replaced by Color of the recursively used SR Policy.</t>

<t>To signal the Composite Candidate Path, we make use of the COLOR TLV, defined in
<xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color"/>. For a Composite Candidate Path, the COLOR TLV
is included in the PATH-ATTRIB Object, thus allowing each Composite Candidate Path
to do ECMP/W-ECMP among SR Policies identified by its constituent Colors.
Only one COLOR TLV SHOULD be included into the PATH-ATTRIB object. If multiple
COLOR TLVs are contained in the PATH-ATTRIB object, only the first one MUST be
processed and the others SHOULD be ignored.</t>

<t>An ERO object MUST be included as per the existing RBNF, 
this ERO SHOULD contain no sub-objects.
If the head-end receives a non-empty ERO, the contents SHOULD be ignored.</t>

<t>See <xref target="CCPEX"/> for an example of the encoding.</t>

<section anchor="PFP" title="Per-Flow Candidate Path">

<t>Per-Flow Candidate Path builds on top of the concept of the Composite Candidate Path.
Each Path in a Per-Flow Candidate Path is assigned a 3-bit forward class value, 
which allows QoS classified traffic to be steered depending on the forward class.</t>

<t>New MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>

<figure title="MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV format" anchor="fig-multipath-forward-class"><artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                            MBZ                          | FC  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Type: (TBD1) for “MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS” TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>FC: Forward class value that is given by the QoS classifier to traffic entering 
the given Candidate Path. Different classes of traffic that enter the given 
Candidate Path can be differentially steered into different Colors.</t>

</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="OP" title="Operation">

<section anchor="capability-negotiation" title="Capability Negotiation">

<section anchor="multipath-capability-tlv" title="Multipath Capability TLV">

<t>New MULTIPATH-CAP TLV is defined. 
This TLV MAY be present in the OPEN object during PCEP session establishment.</t>

<figure title="MULTIPATH-CAP TLV format" anchor="fig-multipath-cap"><artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Number of Multipaths      |            Flags    |C|F|O|B|W|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Type: (60) for “MULTIPATH-CAP” TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>Number of Multipaths: From PCC, it tells how many multipaths the PCC can install in forwarding. 
From PCE, it tells how many multipaths the PCE can compute.
The value 255 indicates unlimited number.
The value 0 is reserved.</t>

<t>W-flag: whether MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is supported.</t>

<t>B-flag: whether MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is supported.</t>

<t>O-flag: whether MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is supported and requested. 
If this flag is set, the PCE SHOULD tell the PCC the reverse path information, if it is able to.</t>

<t>F-flag: whether MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is supported.</t>

<t>C-flag: whether Composite Candidate Path (<xref target="CCP"/>) is supported.
Note that F-flag and C-flag can be set independently,
i.e., F-flag can be set, but C-flag not set, etc.</t>

<t>When PCE computes the LSP path, it MUST NOT return more forward 
multipaths than the corresponding value of “Number of Multipaths”
from the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV.  If this TLV is absent (from both OPEN
and LSP objects), then the “Number of Multipaths” is assumed to be 1.</t>

<t>From the PCC, the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV MAY also be present in the LSP object for each individual LSP, to specify per-LSP values.
The PCC MUST NOT include this TLV in the LSP object if the TLV was not
present in the OPEN objects of both PCEP peers.
TLV values in the LSP object override the session default values 
in the OPEN object.</t>

<t>For example, the PCC includes this TLV in the OPEN object at session establishment,
setting “Number of Multipaths” to 4 and “O-flag” to 0.
The PCC also includes this TLV in the LSP object for a particular LSP,
setting “Number of Multipaths” to 16 and “O-flag” to 1.
This indicates that the PCC only wants to receive the reverse path information for that
particular LSP and that this LSP can have up to 16 multipaths,
while other LSPs can only have up to 4 multipaths.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="PATH-ID" title="Path ID">

<t>The Path ID uniquely identifies a Path within the context of an LSP.
Note that when the LSP is an SR Policy Candidate Path, the 
Paths within that LSP are the Segment-Lists.</t>

<t>Value 0x0 indicates unallocated Path ID.
The value of 0x0 MAY be used when this Path is not being referenced 
and the allocation of a Path ID is not necessary.</t>

<t>Path IDs are allocated by the PCEP peer that owns the LSP.
If the LSP is delegated to the PCE, then the PCE allocates the Path IDs
and sends them in the PCReply/PCUpd/PCInit messages.
If the LSP is locally computed on the PCC, then the PCC allocates the
Path IDs and sends them in the PCReq/PCRpt messages.</t>

<t>If a PCEP speaker detects that there are two Paths with the same Path ID,
then the PCEP speaker SHOULD send PCError message with
Error-Type = 1 (“Reception of an invalid object”) and
Error-Value = 38 (“Conflicting Path ID”).</t>

</section>
<section anchor="signaling-multiple-paths-for-loadbalancing" title="Signaling Multiple Paths for Loadbalancing">

<t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to signal multiple path(s) and indicate
(un)equal loadbalancing amongst the set of multipaths. In this case, the
PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>

<t><list style="numbers">
  <t>The PCE MAY assign a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populate
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP (when non-zero).</t>
  <t>The MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV MAY be carried inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. A
weight is populated to reflect the relative loadshare that is to be
carried by the path. If the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT is not carried inside a
PATH-ATTRIB object, the default weight 1 MUST be assumed when computing
the loadshare.</t>
  <t>The fraction of flows carried by a specific primary path is derived
from the ratio of its weight to the sum of all other multipath weights.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="signaling-multiple-paths-for-protection" title="Signaling Multiple Paths for Protection">

<t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to describe a set of backup path(s) protecting
a primary path within a PCEP LSP. In this case, the PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as
follows:</t>

<t><list style="numbers">
  <t>The PCE assigns a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populates
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP.</t>
  <t>The MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV MAY be added inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is protected. The backup path ID(s) are populated in the
MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV to reflect the set of backup path(s) protecting the
primary path. The Length field and Backup Path Number in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP
are updated according to the number of backup path ID(s) included.</t>
  <t>The MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV MAY be added inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is unprotected. In this case, MULTIPATH-BACKUP does not carry
any backup path IDs in the TLV. If the path acts as a pure backup i.e.
the path only carries rerouted traffic after the protected path(s) fail then
the B flag MUST be set.</t>
</list></t>

<t>Note that primary paths which do not include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV are assumed
to be protected by all the backup paths. I.e., omitting the TLV is equivalent to
including the TLV with all the backup path IDs filled in.</t>

<t>Note that a given PCC may not support certain backup combinations,
such as a backup path that is itself protected by another backup path, etc.
If a PCC is not able to implement a requested backup scenario,
the PCC SHOULD send a PCError message with
Error-Type = 19 (“Invalid Operation”) and
Error-Value = 20 (“Not supported path backup”).</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="RBNF" title="PCEP Message Extensions">

<t>The RBNF of PCReq, PCRep, PCRpt, PCUpd and PCInit messages currently use a combination
of &lt;intended-path&gt; and/or &lt;actual-path&gt;.
As specified in Section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC8231"/>, &lt;intended-path&gt; is represented by the
ERO object and &lt;actual-path&gt; is represented by the RRO object:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= <ERO>

   <actual-path> ::= <RRO>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>In this standard, we extend these two elements to allow multiple ERO/RRO objects to be
present in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|
                       (<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)
                       [<intended-path>])
              

   <actual-path> ::= (<RRO>|
                      (<PATH-ATTRIB><RRO>)
                      [<actual-path>])
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="examples" title="Examples">

<section anchor="sr-policy-candidate-path-with-multiple-segment-lists" title="SR Policy Candidate-Path with Multiple Segment-Lists">

<t>Consider the following sample SR Policy, taken from<vspace />
<xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend, color, endpoint>
    Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
                        100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>
        Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>
    Candidate-path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
                        100:2.2.2.2, discriminator = 2>
        Preference 100
        Weight W3, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i>
        Weight W4, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>As specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>, CP1 and CP2 
are signaled as separate state-report elements and each has 
a unique PLSP-ID, assigned by the PCC. 
Let us assign PLSP-ID 100 to CP1 and PLSP-ID 200 to CP2.</t>

<t>The state-report for CP1 can be encoded as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <END-POINT>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
    <ERO SID-List1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>>
    <ERO SID-List2>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The state-report for CP2 can be encoded as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=200>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <END-POINT>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W3>>
    <ERO SID-List3>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W4>>
    <ERO SID-List4>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The above sample state-report elements only 
specify the minimum mandatory objects, 
of course other objects like SRP, LSPA, METRIC, etc., are allowed to be 
inserted.</t>

<t>Note that the syntax</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>, simply means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to “1” and 
with a MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV carrying weight of “W1”.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="two-primary-paths-protected-by-one-backup-path" title="Two Primary Paths Protected by One Backup Path">

<t>Suppose there are 3 paths: A, B, C.
Where A,B are primary and C is to be used only when A or B fail.
Suppose the Path IDs for A, B, C are respectively 1, 2, 3.
This would be encoded in a state-report as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <END-POINT>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO A>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO B>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=3 <BACKUP-TLV B=1, Backup_Paths=[]>>
    <ERO C>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Note that the syntax</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>, simply means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to “1” and 
with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV that has B-flag cleared and contains
a single backup path with Backup Path ID of 3.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="CCPEX" title="Composite Candidate Path">

<t>Consider the following Composite Candidate Path, taken from<vspace />
<xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL100 <headend = H1, color = 100, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
                        100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SR policy <color = 1>
        Weight W2, SR policy <color = 2>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>This is signaled in PCEP as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
        <ASSOCIATION>
        <END-POINT>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=1>>
        <ERO (empty)>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=2>>
        <ERO (empty)>
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="OPPDIREX" title="Opposite Direction Tunnels">

<t>Consider the two opposite-direction SR Policies between
end-points H1 and E1.</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend = H1, color, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate-path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <H1,M1,M2,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M3,M4,E1>
    Candidate-path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <H1,M5,M6,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M7,M8,E1>

SR policy POL2 <headend = E1, color, endpoint = H1>
    Candidate-path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <E1,M2,M1,H1>
        SID-List = <E1,M4,M3,H1>
    Candidate-path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <E1,M6,M5,H1>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The state-report for POL1, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=4>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=2>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The state-report for POL1, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,N6,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The state-report for POL2, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=4>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=2>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The state-report for POL2, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,N6,E1>>
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="implementation-status" title="Implementation Status">
<t>Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to <xref target="RFC7942"/>.</t>

<t>This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in <xref target="RFC7942"/>.
The description of implementations in this section
is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore,
no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that
was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.</t>

<t>According to <xref target="RFC7942"/>, “this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit”.</t>

<section anchor="cisco-systems" title="Cisco Systems">

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Cisco Systems
Implementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE
Description: Circuit-Style SR Policies
Maturity Level: Supported feature
Coverage: Multiple Segment-Lists and reverse paths in SR Policy
Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="ciena-corp" title="Ciena Corp">

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Ciena Corp
Implementation: Head-end and controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Full
Contact: byadav@ciena.com
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="huawei-technologies" title="Huawei Technologies">

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Partial
Contact: tanren@huawei.com 
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">

<section anchor="pcep-object" title="PCEP Object">
<t>IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the
   existing “PCEP Objects” registry as follows:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | Object-Class | Name        | Object-Type       | Reference       |
 | Value        |             | Value             |                 |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | 45           | PATH-ATTRIB | 1                 | This document   |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="pcep-tlv" title="PCEP TLV">
<t>IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the
   existing “PCEP TLV Type Indicators” registry as follows:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 60         | MULTIPATH-CAP                     | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 61         | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 62         | MULTIPATH-BACKUP                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 63         | MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH             | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD1       | MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS           | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="pcep-error-object" title="PCEP-Error Object">
<t>IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the
   existing “PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values” sub-registry of the
   PCEP Numbers registry for the following errors:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Error-Type | Error-Value                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 10         | 38 - Conflicting Path ID          | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 20 - Not supported path backup    | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 21 - Non-empty path               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-capability-tlv" title="Flags in the Multipath Capability TLV">

<t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, called “Flags in MULTIPATH-CAP
TLV”.
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13         | 0-flag: support for processing    | This document   |
 |            | MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV         |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | B-flag: support for processing    | This document   |
 |            | MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV              |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | W-flag: support for processing    | This document   |
 |            | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV              |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="flags-in-the-path-attribute-object" title="Flags in the Path Attribute Object">

<t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the PATH-ATTRIBUTE object,
called “Flags in PATH-ATTRIBUTE Object”.
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13-15      | O-flag: Operational state         | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-backup-tlv" title="Flags in the Multipath Backup TLV">

<t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV,
called “Flags in MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV”.
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-14       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | B-flag: Pure backup               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-opposite-direction-path-tlv" title="Flags in the Multipath Opposite Direction Path TLV">

<t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the flag
fields of the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV,
called “Flags in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV”.
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | L-flag: Link co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | N-flag: Node co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">

<t>None at this time.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="acknowledgement" title="Acknowledgement">

<t>Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for ideas and discussion.
   Thanks to Yuan Yaping for review comments.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="contributors" title="Contributors">

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems
   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Samuel Sidor
   Cisco Systems
   Email: ssidor@cisco.com

   Andrew Stone
   Nokia
   Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com

   Chen Ran
   ZTE
   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title='Normative References'>



<reference anchor='RFC2119' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119'>
  <front>
    <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
    <author fullname='S. Bradner' initials='S.' surname='Bradner'/>
    <date month='March' year='1997'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2119'/>
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC8664' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664'>
  <front>
    <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
    <author fullname='S. Sivabalan' initials='S.' surname='Sivabalan'/>
    <author fullname='C. Filsfils' initials='C.' surname='Filsfils'/>
    <author fullname='J. Tantsura' initials='J.' surname='Tantsura'/>
    <author fullname='W. Henderickx' initials='W.' surname='Henderickx'/>
    <author fullname='J. Hardwick' initials='J.' surname='Hardwick'/>
    <date month='December' year='2019'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by link-state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). An SR path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), an explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks.</t>
      <t>This document updates RFC 8408.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8664'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8664'/>
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC9256' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256'>
  <front>
    <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
    <author fullname='C. Filsfils' initials='C.' surname='Filsfils'/>
    <author fullname='K. Talaulikar' initials='K.' role='editor' surname='Talaulikar'/>
    <author fullname='D. Voyer' initials='D.' surname='Voyer'/>
    <author fullname='A. Bogdanov' initials='A.' surname='Bogdanov'/>
    <author fullname='P. Mattes' initials='P.' surname='Mattes'/>
    <date month='July' year='2022'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.</t>
      <t>This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='9256'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC9256'/>
</reference>


<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp' target='https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17'>
   <front>
      <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths</title>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev' initials='M.' surname='Koldychev'>
         <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Siva Sivabalan' initials='S.' surname='Sivabalan'>
         <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Colby Barth' initials='C.' surname='Barth'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng' initials='S.' surname='Peng'>
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Hooman Bidgoli' initials='H.' surname='Bidgoli'>
         <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='25' month='June' year='2024'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any
   path.  SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions)
   that represent a source-routed policy.  Packet flows are steered into
   an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend
   node.  An SR Policy is made of one or more candidate paths.

   This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extension to signal candidate paths of the SR Policy.
   Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow stateful bring
   up of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP), without using the path
   computation request and reply messages.  This document is applicable
   to both Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over
   IPv6 (SRv6).

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-17'/>
   
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC8174' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174'>
  <front>
    <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
    <author fullname='B. Leiba' initials='B.' surname='Leiba'/>
    <date month='May' year='2017'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8174'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8174'/>
</reference>


<reference anchor='I-D.schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy' target='https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-02'>
   <front>
      <title>Circuit Style Segment Routing Policies</title>
      <author fullname='Christian Schmutzer' initials='C.' surname='Schmutzer'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Clarence Filsfils' initials='C.' surname='Filsfils'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Zafar Ali' initials='Z.' surname='Ali'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Francois Clad' initials='F.' surname='Clad'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Praveen Maheshwari' initials='P.' surname='Maheshwari'>
         <organization>Airtel India</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Reza Rokui' initials='R.' surname='Rokui'>
         <organization>Ciena</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Andrew Stone' initials='A.' surname='Stone'>
         <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Luay Jalil' initials='L.' surname='Jalil'>
         <organization>Verizon</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng' initials='S.' surname='Peng'>
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Tarek Saad' initials='T.' surname='Saad'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Daniel Voyer' initials='D.' surname='Voyer'>
         <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='5' month='May' year='2022'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
   to satisfy the requirements for strict bandwidth guarantees, end-to-
   end recovery and persistent paths within a segment routing network.
   SR policies satisfying these requirements are called &quot;circuit-style&quot;
   SR policies (CS-SR policies).

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-02'/>
   
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC8231' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231'>
  <front>
    <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE</title>
    <author fullname='E. Crabbe' initials='E.' surname='Crabbe'/>
    <author fullname='I. Minei' initials='I.' surname='Minei'/>
    <author fullname='J. Medved' initials='J.' surname='Medved'/>
    <author fullname='R. Varga' initials='R.' surname='Varga'/>
    <date month='September' year='2017'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
      <t>Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8231'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8231'/>
</reference>


<reference anchor='I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color' target='https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-04'>
   <front>
      <title>Path Computation Element Protocol(PCEP) Extension for Color</title>
      <author fullname='Balaji Rajagopalan' initials='B.' surname='Rajagopalan'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Vishnu Pavan Beeram' initials='V. P.' surname='Beeram'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shaofu Peng' initials='S.' surname='Peng'>
         <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev' initials='M.' surname='Koldychev'>
         <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Gyan Mishra' initials='G. S.' surname='Mishra'>
         <organization>Verizon Communications Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='27' month='May' year='2024'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a
   Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective
   (e.g. low latency).  This document specifies an extension to Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-04'/>
   
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC7942' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942'>
  <front>
    <title>Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section</title>
    <author fullname='Y. Sheffer' initials='Y.' surname='Sheffer'/>
    <author fullname='A. Farrel' initials='A.' surname='Farrel'/>
    <date month='July' year='2016'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.</t>
      <t>This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='BCP' value='205'/>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7942'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7942'/>
</reference>




    </references>

    <references title='Informative References'>



<reference anchor='RFC8745' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8745'>
  <front>
    <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCE</title>
    <author fullname='H. Ananthakrishnan' initials='H.' surname='Ananthakrishnan'/>
    <author fullname='S. Sivabalan' initials='S.' surname='Sivabalan'/>
    <author fullname='C. Barth' initials='C.' surname='Barth'/>
    <author fullname='I. Minei' initials='I.' surname='Minei'/>
    <author fullname='M. Negi' initials='M.' surname='Negi'/>
    <date month='March' year='2020'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Furthermore, it is also possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document defines the PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8745'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8745'/>
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC9059' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9059'>
  <front>
    <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
    <author fullname='R. Gandhi' initials='R.' role='editor' surname='Gandhi'/>
    <author fullname='C. Barth' initials='C.' surname='Barth'/>
    <author fullname='B. Wen' initials='B.' surname='Wen'/>
    <date month='June' year='2021'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document defines Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for grouping two unidirectional MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), one in each direction in the network, into an associated bidirectional LSP. These PCEP extensions can be applied either using a stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs or using a stateless PCE. The PCEP procedures defined are applicable to the LSPs using RSVP-TE for signaling.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='9059'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC9059'/>
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC8126' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126'>
  <front>
    <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
    <author fullname='M. Cotton' initials='M.' surname='Cotton'/>
    <author fullname='B. Leiba' initials='B.' surname='Leiba'/>
    <author fullname='T. Narten' initials='T.' surname='Narten'/>
    <date month='June' year='2017'/>
    <abstract>
      <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
      <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t>
      <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name='BCP' value='26'/>
  <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8126'/>
  <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8126'/>
</reference>




    </references>



  </back>

<!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>

