Document: draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy
Title: Circuit Style Segment Routing Policy
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review result: Not Ready
Hi Authors, WG
I am the RTG DIR reviewer for draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-10. I have
competed an early review for the draft. I have some concerns with the clarity
and terminology used, as well many editorial nits.
As a general high-level comment, the term 'transport' is well used in the IETF,
but what I think you are trying to do for SR Policy with an MPLS data plane is
very similar to packet transport a.k.a. MPLS-TP. I am not saying that you need
to use MPLS-TP concepts or protocol extensions here, but it would help at least
of the terminology was consistent and there was some cross-referencing of
common architectural elements like bidirectional co-routed paths, some of the
OAM and protection requirements etc. Also, I think it would help with
readability of some of the sections were restructured in terms of architecture,
then BGP protocol extensions, then PCEP extensions. They are interleaved in the
current text and that makes it harder to follow.
Since I have a fair number of comments, I have copied the complete text below
with comments prepended by 'MB>' in-line.
Thanks
Matthew
=======
Network Working Group C. Schmutzer, Ed.
Internet-Draft Z. Ali, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 26 December 2025 P. Maheshwari
Airtel India
R. Rokui
Ciena
A. Stone
Nokia
24 June 2025
Circuit Style Segment Routing Policy
draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-10
Abstract
This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
to satisfy the requirements for bandwidth, end-to-end recovery and
persistent paths within a SR network. The association of two co-
routed unidirectional SR Policies satisfying these requirements is
called "circuit-style" SR Policy (CS-SR Policy).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 December 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Managing Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. CS-SR Policy Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. CS-SR Policy Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Policy Creation when using PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. PCC-initiated Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.2. PCE-initiated Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Policy Creation when using BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Maximum SID Depth Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Recovery Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Unprotected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. 1:1 Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.1. Reversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.1. 1+R Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.2. 1:1+R Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) . . . . . . 19
8.1. Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3. Candidate Path Validity Verification . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. External Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Candidate Path Switchover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. Candidate Path Re-computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
1. Introduction
IP services typically leverage ECMP and local protection. However
transport services (commonly referred to as "private lines") that are
delivered via pseudowires such as [RFC4448], [RFC4553],
[I-D.ietf-pals-ple], [RFC5086] and [RFC4842] for example, require:
MB>Update ietf-pals-ple reference
MB> I think you need to distinguish "transport" in this context from "packet
transport" as was defined in the context of MPLS-TP (see RFC5654), which also
defines bidirectional co-routed paths that meet the requirements below.
* Persistent end-to-end bidirectional traffic engineered paths that
provide predictable and identical latency in both directions
* A requested amount of bandwidth per path that is assured
irrespective of changing network utilization other services
* Fast end-to-end protection and restoration mechanisms
* Monitoring and maintenance of path integrity
* Data plane remaining up while control plane is down
Such a "transport centric" behavior is referred to as "circuit-style"
in this document.
This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) Policies [RFC9256]
and adjacency segment identifiers (adjacency-SIDs) defined in the SR
architecture [RFC8402] together with a centralised controller such as
a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC8231] can be used to
satisfy those requirements. It includes how end-to-end recovery and
path integrity monitoring can be implemented.
A "Circuit-Style" SR Policy (CS-SR Policy) is an association of two
co-routed unidirectional SR Policies satisfying the above
requirements and allowing for a single SR network to carry both
typical IP (connection-less) services and connection-oriented
transport services.
2. Requirements Notation
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.
3. Terminology
* BSID : Binding Segment Identifier
* CS-SR : Circuit-Style Segment Routing
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
* DWDM : Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
* ID : Identifier
* LSP : Label Switched Path
* LSPA : LSP Attributes
* NRP : Network Resource Partition
* OAM : Operations, Administration and Maintenance
* OF : Objective Function
* PCE : Path Computation Element
* PCEP : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
* PT : Protection Type
* SID : Segment Identifier
* SLA : Service Level Agreement
* SDH : Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
* SONET : Synchronous Optical Network
* SR : Segment Routing
* STAMP : Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
* TI-LFA : Topology Independent Loop Free Alternate
* TLV : Type Length Value
4. Reference Model
The reference model for CS-SR Policies follows the SR architecture
[RFC8402] and SR Policy architecture [RFC9256] and is depicted in
Figure 1.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
+----------------+
+-------------->| controller |<------------+
| +----------------+ |
PCEP/BGP/config PCEP/BGP/config
| |
v <<<<<<<<<<<<<< CS-SR Policy >>>>>>>>>>>>> v
+-------+ +-------+
| |=========================================>| |
| A | SR Policy from A to Z | Z |
| |<=========================================| |
+-------+ SR Policy from Z to A +-------+
Figure 1: Circuit-style SR Policy Reference Model
Given the nature of CS-SR Policies, paths are computed and maintained
by a centralized entity providing a consistent simple mechanism for
initializing the co-routed bidirectional end-to-end paths, performing
bandwidth allocation control, as well as monitoring facilities to
ensure SLA compliance for the live of the CS-SR Policy.
CS-SR Policies can be instantiated in the headend routers using PCEP,
BGP or configuration.
* When using PCEP as the communication protocol on the headend
MB> I think you mean "communication protocol between the controller and the
headend routers"
routers, the centralized entity is a stateful PCE defined in
[RFC8231]. When using SR-MPLS [RFC8660], PCEP extensions defined
in [RFC8664] are used. When using SRv6 [RFC8754] [RFC8986], PCEP
extensions defined in [RFC9603] are used.
* When using BGP as the communication protocol on the headend
routers, the BGP extensions defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] are used.
* When using configuration, the YANG model defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang] does apply.
MB> Why are you appearing to mandate this particular device model, when many
other industry standard models (such as OpenConfig) could apply? Also I find
the terminology "...does apply" to be imprecise. Perhaps you mean "MAY apply."?
In order to satisfy the requirements of CS-SR Policies, each link in
the topology MUST have:
* An adjacency-SID which is:
- Manually assigned or auto-generated, but persistent: to ensure
that its value does not change after a node reload
MB> I am ot sure that "node reload" is common terminology. Perhaps "node reboot
or other event that may cause dynamic state changes in a node."
- Non-protected: to avoid any local TI-LFA protection to happen
upon interface/link failures
MB> Add a reference?
* The bandwidth available for CS-SR Policies specified
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
* A per-hop behavior ([RFC3246] or [RFC2597]) that ensures that the
specified bandwidth is always available to CS-SR Policies
independent of any other traffic
MB> I suggest added '.' to the end of each list item above, to be consistent.
This comment applies throughout the rest of the draft. Theer are also many
other sentences missing their full stop / period.
When using link bundles (i.e. [IEEE802.1AX]), parallel physical links
are only represented via a single adjacency. To ensure deterministic
traffic placement onto physical links, an adjacency-SID SHOULD be
assigned to each physical link (aka member-link) ([RFC8668],
[RFC9356]). Similarly, the use of adjacency-SIDs representing
parallel adjacencies Section 3.4.1 of [RFC8402] SHOULD also be
avoided.
When using SR-MPLS [RFC8660], existing IGP extensions defined in
[RFC8667] and [RFC8665] and BGP-LS defined in [RFC9085] can be used
to distribute the topology information including those persistent and
unprotected adjacency-SIDs.
When using SRv6 [RFC8754], the IGP extensions defined in [RFC9352]
and [RFC9513] and BGP-LS extensions in [RFC9514] apply.
4.1. Managing Bandwidth
In a network, resources are represented by links of certain
bandwidth. In a circuit switched network such as SONET/SDH, OTN or
DWDM resources (timeslots or a wavelength) are allocated for a
provisioned connection at the time of reservation even if no
communication is present. In a packet switched network, resources
are only allocated when communication is present, i.e. packets are to
be sent. This allows for the total reservations to exceed the link
bandwidth as well in general for link congestion.
To satisfy the bandwidth requirement for CS-SR Policies it must be
ensured that packets carried by CS-SR Policies can always be sent up
to the reserved bandwidth on each hop along the path.
This is done by:
* Firstly, CS-SR Policy bandwidth reservations per link must be
limited to equal or less than the physical link bandwidth.
* Secondly, ensuring traffic for each CS-SR Policy is limited to the
bandwidth reserved for that CS-SR Policy by traffic policing or
shaping and admission control on the ingress of the pseudowire.
* Thirdly, ensuring that during times of link congestion only non-
CS-SR Policy traffic is being buffered or dropped.
For the third step several approaches can be considered:
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
* Allocate a dedicated physical link of bandwidth P to CS-SR
Policies and allow CS-SR reservations up to bandwidth C. Consider
bandwidth N allocated for network control, ensure that P - N >= C
* Allocate a dedicate logical link (i.e. 801.q VLAN on ethernet) to
CS-SR Policies on a physical link of bandwidth P. Limit the total
utilization across all other logical links to bandwidth O by
traffic policing or shaping and ensure that P - N - O >= C
* Allocate a dedicated Diffserv codepoint to map traffic of CS-SR
Policies into a specific queue not used by any other traffic
* Use of dedicated persistent unprotected adjacency-SIDs that are
solely used by CS-SR traffic. These dedicated SIDs used by CS-SR
Policies MUST NOT be used by features such as TI-LFA
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] for defining the repair
path and microloop avoidance
[I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] for defining the loop-
free path.
MB> For this: "Use of dedicated persistent unprotected adjacency-SIDs that are
solely used by CS-SR traffic" How would this work? I don't think there is
anything in a SID in a segment list that says it was originated by a
CS-SR Policy. And in principle an adjacency SID programmed at a router
can be used by any other kind of segment routing path. Perhaps you mean
that this is a network wide policy?
The approach of allocating a Diffserv codepoint can leverage any of
the following Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) strategies below, where P is the
bandwidth of a physical link, N is the bandwidth allocated for
network control and C is the bandwidth reserved for CS-SR policies:
* Use a Assured Forwarding (AF) class queue [RFC2597] for CS-SR
Policies and limit the total utilization across all other queues
to bandwidth O by traffic policing or shaping and ensure that P -
N - O >= C
* Use a Expedited Forwarding (EF) class queue [RFC3246] for CS-SR
Policies and limit the total utilization across all other EF
queues of higher or equal priority to bandwidth O by traffic
policing or shaping and ensure that P - N - O >= C
* Use a Expedited Forwarding (EF) class queue for CS-SR Policies
with a priority higher than all other EF queues and limit the
utilization of the CS-SR Policy EF queue by traffic policing to C
<= P - N
The use of a dedicated Diffserv codepoint for CS-SR traffic requires
the marking of all traffic steered into CS-SR Policies on the ingress
with that specific codepoint consistently across the domain.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
In addition, the headends may measure the actual bandwidth
utilization of a CS-SR Policy to raise alarms when bandwidth
utilization thresholds are passed or to request the reserved
bandwidth to be adjusted. Using telemetry collection the alarms or
bandwidth adjustments can also be triggered by the controller.
MB> I suggest consistency in the sue of RFC2119 language (e.g. MAY vs may)
5. CS-SR Policy Characteristics
A CS-SR Policy has the following characteristics:
* Requested bandwidth: bandwidth to be reserved for the CS-SR Policy
* Bidirectional co-routed: a CS-SR Policy between A and Z is an
association of an SR Policy from A to Z and an SR Policy from Z to
A following the same path(s)
* Deterministic and persistent paths: segment lists with strict hops
using unprotected adjacency-SIDs
* Not automatically recomputed or reoptimized: the SID list of a
candidate path MUST NOT change automatically to a SID list
representing a different path (for example upon topology change)
* More than one candidate paths in case of protection/restoration:
- Following the SR Policy architecture, the highest preference
valid path is carrying traffic
- Depending on the protection/restoration scheme (Section 7),
lower priority candidate paths
o may be pre-computed
o may be pre-programmed
o may have to be disjoint
* Connectivity verification and performance measurement are
activated on each candidate path (Section 8)
MB> Do you also need only one active segment list per candidate path, otherwise
you may get load balancing across the segment lists, whihc I think you are
trying to avoid.
6. CS-SR Policy Creation
6.1. Policy Creation when using PCEP
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
6.1.1. PCC-initiated Mode
Considering the scenario illustrated in Figure 1 a CS-SR Policy
between A and Z is instantiated by configured a SR Policy on both
headend A (with Z as endpoint) and headend Z (with A as endpoint).
Both nodes A and Z act as PCC and delegate path computation to the
PCE using PCEP with the procedure described in Section 5.7.1 of
[RFC8231]. For SR-MPLS the extensions defined in [RFC8664] are used.
And SRv6 specific extensions are defined in [RFC9603].
The PCRpt message sent from the headends to the PCE SHOULD contain
the following parameters:
* BANDWIDTH object (Section 7.7 of [RFC5440]) : to indicate the
requested bandwidth
* LSPA object (section 7.11 of [RFC5440]) : to indicate that no
local protection requirements
- L flag set to 0 : no local protection
- E flag set to 1 : protection enforcement (section 5 of
[RFC9488])
* ASSOCIATION object ([RFC8697]) :
- Type : Double-sided Bidirectional with Reverse LSP Association
([I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path])
- Bidirectional Association Group TLV ([RFC9059]) :
o R flag is always set to 0 (forward path)
o C flag is always set to 1 (co-routed)
If the SR Policies are configured with more than one candidate path,
a PCEP request is sent per candidate path. Each PCEP request does
MB> Can you be specific about which PCEP messages? Also, I assume 'does' means
'MUST'. IF so, please clarify.
include the "SR Policy Association" object (type 6) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] to make the PCE aware of the
candidate path belonging to the same policy.
The signaling extensions described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions] are used to ensure that
MB> s/ensure that/ ensure that:
* Path determinism is achieved by the PCE only using segment lists
representing a strict hop by hop path using unprotected adjacency-
SIDs.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
* Path persistency across node reloads in the network is achieved by
the PCE only including manually configured adjacency-SIDs in its
path computation response.
MB> PLease clarify what you mean by 'reload'. I assume you mean a 'restart'
that could flush or change dynamic state. Also, I believe 'static' is typically
used as the term rather than 'manual' as manual implies human configuration,
which may not be the case.
* Persistency across network changes is achieved by the PCE not
performing periodic nor network event triggered re-optimization.
MB> s/periodic nor / periodic or /
Bandwidth adjustment can be requested after initial creation by
signaling both requested and operational bandwidth in the BANDWIDTH
object but the PCE is not allowed to respond with a changed path.
MB> 'not allowed' or 'MUST NOT'?
As discussed in section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] it may be
necessary to use load-balancing across multiple paths to satisfy the
bandwidth requirement of a candidate path. In such a case the PCE
will notify the PCC to install multiple segment lists using the
signaling procedures described in section 5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-multipath].
6.1.2. PCE-initiated Mode
The CS-SR Policy can be instantiated in the network between A and Z
by a PCE using PCE-initiated procedures. For PCE-initiated
procedures no SR Policy configuration is required on the PCC. The
PCE requests the PCC to initiate the candiate paths of the CS-SR
Policy.
The PcInit message contains the same Bandwidth, LSPA, and ASSOCIATION
objects used in PCC-initiated mode. Following initiation, the
candidate paths are reported and updated following PCEP procedures
and share the same behavior as the PCC-initiated mode.
MB> How does the PCE indicate to the PCC which proactive OAM or Performance
monitoring to use? I think this type of OAM (such as using seamless BFD to
rapidly detect failures) is very important for a transport service. If there is
no standard mechanism today, then I suggest you explicitly state that.
6.2. Policy Creation when using BGP
Again, considering the scenario illustrated in Figure 1, instead of
configuring SR Policies on both headend A (with Z as endpoint) and
headend Z (with A as endpoint), a CS-SR Policy between A and Z is
instantiated by a request (e.g. application API call) to the
centralized controller.
The controller does perform path computation and is requesting the
headends via BGP to instantiate the corresponding SR Policies on
them.
MB> Suggest rephrasing to "The controller performs path computation and
advertises the corresponding SR Policies to the head end routers via BGP."
To instantiate the SR Policies in A and Z the BGP extensions defined
in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] are used.
No signaling extensions are required for the following:
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
* Path determinism is achieved by the controller only using segment
lists representing a strict hop by hop path using unprotected
adjacency-SIDs.
MB> Suggest rephrasing to: "Path determinism is achieved by the controller only
computing strict paths and only including unprotected adjacency SIDs in segment
lists. Loose hops SHOULD NOT be used.""
* Path persistency across node reloads in the network is achieved by
the controller only including manually configured adjacency-SIDs
in its path computation response.
MB> As mentioned above, please clarify 'node reloads'
* Persistency across network changes is achieved by the controller
not performing periodic nor network event triggered re-
optimization.
MB> s/the controller not performing periodic nor network event triggered re-
optimization. / he controller not performing periodic or network event
triggered re-optimization.
MB> I actually don't quite get this point. If the head ends support MBB, and
the new paths can be computed to meet existing service constraints and traffic
moved seamlessly on to them, then what is wrong with that? Also, IP networks
reconverge all the time... are you really saying that you would never
reoptimize, even if all of the segment lists in the programmed SR Policies go
down?
If there are more than one candidate paths per SR Policy required,
multiple NLRIs with different distinguisher values (see section 2.1
of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]) have to be included in the BGP
UPDATE message.
To achieve load-balancing across multiple paths to satisfy the
bandwidth requirement of a candidate path, multiple Segment List Sub-
TLVs have to be included in the SR Policy Sub-TLV. See section 2.1
of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]
MB> s/ [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] / [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi].
The headends A and Z report the SR Policy states back to the
centralized controller via BGP-LS using the extension defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy].
MB> YANG state is an equally viable option, so I think it would be reasonable
to use that as well.
6.3. Maximum SID Depth Constraint
The segment lists used by CS-SR Policy candidate paths are
constrained by the maximum number of segments a router can impose
onto a packet.
When using SR-MPLS this constraint is called "Base MPLS Imposition
MSD" and is advertised via IS-IS [RFC8491], OSPF [RFC8476], BGP-LS
[RFC8814] and PCEP [RFC8664].
When using SRv6 this constraint is called "SRH Max H.encaps MSD" and
is advertised via IS-IS [RFC9352], OSPF [RFC9513], BGP-LS [RFC9514]
and PCEP [RFC9603].
The MSD constraint is typically resolved by leveraging a segment list
reduction technique, such as using Node SIDs and/or BSIDs (SR
architecture [RFC8402]) in a segment list, which represents one or
many hops in a given path.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
As described in Section 5, adjacency-SIDs without local protection
are to be used for CS-SR Policies to ensure no ECMP, no rerouting due
to topological changes nor localized protection is being invoked on
the traffic, as the alternate path may not be providing the desired
SLA.
MB> Suggest rephrasing to: "As described in Section 5, adjacency-SIDs without
local protection are used in CS-SR Policies to ensure that there is no per-hop
ECMP, no localized rerouting due to topological changes, and no invocation of
localized protection mechanisms, as alternate paths may not meet the desired
SLA."
If a CS-SR Policy path requires SID List reduction, a Node SID cannot
be utilized
MB> I think you mean "...a Node SID cannot be used as the final SID in a
segment list..." but I am not sure the following always follows. So all you
need to say is that "If a CS-SR Policy path requires SID List reduction, a
binding SID (BSID) can be programmed to a transit node, if the following
requirements are met:"
as it is eligible for traffic rerouting following IGP re-
convergence. However, a BSID can be programmed to a transit node, if
the following requirements are met:
* The BSID is unprotected, hence only has one candidate path
* The BSID follows the rerouting and optimization characteristics
defined in Section 5 which implies the SID list of the candidate
path MUST only use unprotected adjacency-SIDs.
MB> Please ensure that the usage of '.' at the end of each list item is
consistent.
This ensures that any CS-SR Policies in which the BSID provides
transit for do not get rerouted due to topological changes or
protected due to failures. A BSID may be pre-programmed in the
network or automatically injected in the network by a PCE.
MB> A BSID is a is fundamentally part of the SR Policy route or the
configuration of the SR Policy. ALso, it is not the BSID that provides transit
but rather the SR Policy that it is associated with at the transit router. I
suggest rephrasing the above to not imply that it is somehow independent of the
SR Policy programmed at the transit router.
7. Recovery Schemes
Various recovery (protection and restoration) schemes can be
implemented for a CS-SR Policy. As described in Section 4.3 of
[RFC4427], there is a subtle distinction between the terms
"protection" and "restoration" based on the resource allocation done
during the recovery path establishment. The same definitions apply
for CS-SR Policy recovery schemes, wherein:
* Protection: another candidate path is computed and fully
established in the data plane and ready to carry traffic
* Restoration: a candidate path may be computed and may be partially
established but is not ready to carry traffic
The term "failure" is used to represent both "hard failures" such
complete loss of connectivity detected by connectivity verification
MB> or continuity check...
described in Section 8.1 or degradation, i.e., when the packet loss
ratio increased beyond a configured acceptable threshold.
7.1. Unprotected
In the most basic scenario, no protection nor restoration is
required. The CS-SR Policy has only one candidate path configured.
This candidate path is established, activated and is carrying
traffic.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
When using PCEP, a PCRpt message is sent from the PCC to the PCE with
the O field in the LSP object Section 7.3 of [RFC8231] set to 2 to
indicate the candidate path is active and carrying traffic.
When using BGP, a BGP-LS update is sent from the headend to the
centralized controller with the SR Candidate Path State TLV of the SR
Policy Candidate Path NLRI having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path is active and
carrying traffic
In case of a failure along the path the CS-SR Policy will go down and
traffic will not be recovered.
Typically, two CS-SR Policies are deployed either within the same
network with disjoint paths or in two separate networks and the
overlay service is responsible for traffic recovery.
7.2. 1:1 Protection
For fast recovery against failures the CS-SR Policy has two candidate
paths. Both paths are established but only the candidate with higher
preference is activated and is carrying traffic. The second
candidate path is programmed as backup in the forwarding plane as
described in Section 9.3 of [RFC9256].
When using PCEP, the PCRpt message for the candidate path with higher
preference will have the O field in the LSP object set to 2 to
indicate the candidate path is active and carrying traffic. For the
candidate path with the lower preference the O field in the LSP
object is set to 1 to indicate the candidate path is signaled but not
carrying traffic.
Appropriate diverse routing of the candidate path with lower
preference from the candidate path with higher preference can be
requested from the PCE by using the "Disjointness Association" object
(type 2) defined in [RFC8800] in the PCRpt messages. The disjoint
requirements are communicated in the "DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION TLV"
* L bit set to 1 for link diversity
* N bit set to 1 for node diversity
* S bit set to 1 for SRLG diversity
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
* T bit set to enforce strict diversity
The P bit may be set for the candidate path with higher preference to
allow for finding the best path for it that does satisfy all
constraints without considering diversity to the candidate path with
the lower preference.
The "Objective Function (OF) TLV" as defined in section 5.3 of
[RFC8800] may also be added to minimize the common shared resources.
When using BGP, the controller is already aware of the disjoint
requirements and does consider them while computing both paths. Two
NLRIs with different distinguisher values and different preference
values are included in the BGP UPDATE sent to the headend routers.
MB> Isn't this also the case for PCE initiated SR Policies. That is, the
controller is aware apriori of the candidate path diversity requirements? I
suggest reorganising this section, or making it clear which PCEP statements
apply to PCC initiated and which to PCE initiated cases.
A BGP-LS update is sent to the controller with a SR Policy Candidate
Path NLRI for the candidate path with higher preference where the SR
Candidate Path State TLV is having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate that candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path is active and
carrying traffic
and another SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the candidate path with
lower preference where the SR Candidate Path State TLV is having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* B-Flag set to 1 to indicate the role of backup path
MB> Isn't the above only needed if the controller did not program the SR
Policies , and they were originated by some other BGP speaker?
Upon a failure impacting the candidate path with higher preference
carrying traffic, the candidate path with lower preference is
activated immediately and traffic is now sent across it.
When using PCEP a PCRpt message for the higher preference candidate
path is sent to the PCE with the O field changed from 2 to 0 and a
PCRpt message for the lower preference candidate path with the O
field change from 1 to 2.
When using BGP a BGP-LS update is sent to the controller with a SR
Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the candidate path with higher
preference with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the A-Flag
cleared and another BGP-LS update for the candidate path with lower
preference with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the B-Flag
cleared and A-Flag set to 1.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
Protection switching is bidirectional. As described in Section 8.1,
both headends will generate and receive their own loopback mode test
packets, hence even a unidirectional failure will always be detected
by both headends without protection switch coordination required.
7.2.1. Reversion
Two cases are to be considered when the failure(s) impacting a
candidate path with higher preference are cleared:
* Revertive switching: re-activate the higher preference candidate
path and start sending traffic over it
* Non-revertive switching: do not activate the higher preference
candidate path and keep sending traffic via the lower preference
candidate path
When using PCEP, for revertive switching a PCRpt message for the
recovered higher preference candidate path is sent to the PCE with
the O field changed from 0 to 2 and send a PCRpt message for the
lower preference candidate path with the O field changed from 2 to 1.
For non-revertive switching only a PCRpt message for the recovered
higher preference candidate path with the O field set to 1 is sent.
When using BGP and revertive switching a BGP-LS update is sent to the
controller with a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the recovered
higher preference candidate path with the SR Candidate Path State TLV
having the A-Flag set to 1 and another BGP-LS update with a SR Policy
Candidate Path NLRI for the lower preference candidate path with the
SR Candidate Path State TLV having the A-Flag cleared and B-Flag set
to 1. For non-revertive switching only a BGP-LS update with a SR
Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the higher preference candidate path
with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the B-Flag set to 1 is
sent.
7.3. Restoration
7.3.1. 1+R Restoration
MB> I dont see 1+R defined in RFC4427 referenced above. Is this something new
to CS-SR Policy, or is there an external definition of the recovery
architecture that you can reference? I am not sure this is really any different
from RFC4427 section 7.2.2 "LSP Soft Restoration", but the structure fo the
text below is a bit confusing. MB> Maybe you could explain more about he
recovery architecture and then go into the PCEP and BGP signaling details.
Also, you don't distinguish PCE Initiated from the PCC initiated case below. I
assume for PCE initiated the controller programs a new candidate path after the
failure is detected, but in the PCC initiated case a candidate path is already
programmed but not activated, and then the router requests a new path from the
PCE after the failure is detected?
Compared to 1:1 protection described in Section 7.2, this restoration
scheme avoids pre-allocating protection bandwidth in steady state,
while still being able to recover traffic flow in case of a network
failure in a deterministic way (maintain required bandwidth
commitment)
MB> Suggest rephrasing to "(and therefore maintaining the required bandwidth
commitment)."
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
When using PCEP, the CS-SR Policy is configured with two candidate
paths. The candidate path with higher preference is established,
activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) and is carrying
traffic.
The second candidate path with lower preference is only established
and activated (PCRpt message to the PCE with O field in LSP object is
set to 2) upon a failure impacting the first candidate path in order
to send traffic over an alternate path through the network around the
failure with potentially relaxed constraints but still satisfying the
bandwidth commitment.
The second candidate path is generally only requested from the PCE
and activated after a failure, but may also be requested and pre-
established during CS-SR Policy creation with the downside of
bandwidth being set aside ahead of time.
As soon as failure(s) that brought the first candidate path down are
cleared, the second candidate path is getting deactivated (PCRpt
message to the PCE with O field in LSP object is set to 1) or torn
down. The first candidate path is activated (PCRpt message to the
PCE with O field in LSP object is set to 2) and traffic sent across
it.
When using BGP, the controller does compute one path and does include
one NLRI in the BGP UPDATE message sent to the headend routers to
instantiate the CS-SR Policy with one candidate path active and
carrying traffic.
A BGP-LS update with a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI is sent to the
controller with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path is active and
carrying traffic
Upon the controller detecting the failure of the CS-SR Policy's
candidate path, another path is computed and added as second
candidate path to the CS-SR Policy by sending a BGP UPDATE message to
the headend routers with a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI where the
distinguisher value being different and preference being lower
compared to the first candidate path.
A BGP-LS update with a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the
candidate path with higher preference is sent to the controller with
the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
* A-Flag is cleared to indicate the candidate path is no longer
active and not carrying traffic anymore
and another SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the candidate path with
lower preference with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path is active and
carrying traffic
The second candidate path is generally only instantiated by the
controller and activated after a failure, but may also be
instantiated and pre-established during CS-SR Policy creation with
the downside of bandwidth being set aside ahead of time. If so, a
BGP-LS update with a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI is sent to the
controller with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* B-Flag set to 1 to indicate the role of backup path
Once the controller has detected the failure(s) that brought the
first candidate path down are cleared, a BGP-LS update with a SR
Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the first candidate path is sent to
the controller with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path became active and
is carrying traffic again
The second candidate path is getting removed by a BGP UPDATE message
withdrawing the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI of the second candidate
path.
Restoration and reversion behavior is bidirectional. As described in
Section 8.1, both headends use connectivity verification in loopback
mode and therefore even in case of unidirectional failures both
headends will detect the failure or clearance of the failure and
switch traffic away from the failed or to the recovered candidate
path.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
7.3.2. 1:1+R Restoration
For further resiliency in case of multiple concurrent failures that
could affect both candidate paths of 1:1 protection described in
Section 7.2, a third candidate path with a preference lower than the
other two candidate paths is added to the CS-SR Policy to enable
restoration.
When using PCEP, the third candidate path will generally only be
established, activated (PCRpt message to the PCE with O field in LSP
object is set to 2) and carry traffic after failure(s) have impacted
both the candidate path with highest and second highest preference.
The third candidate path may also be requested and pre-computed
already whenever either the first or second candidate path went down
due to a failure with the downside of bandwidth being set aside ahead
of time.
As soon as failure(s) that brought either the first or second
candidate path down are cleared, the affected candidate path is
activated again (PCRpt message to the PCE with O field in LSP object
is set to 2). The third candidate path is to be deactivated (PCRpt
message to the PCE with O field in LSP object is set to 1).
When using BGP, the third candidate path will generally only be
instantiated by the controller and activated after failure(s) have
impacted both the candidate path with highest and second highest
preference, but may also be instantiated and pre-established during
CS-SR Policy creation with the downside of bandwidth being set aside
ahead of time.
Assuming the case where both candidate paths are down, a BGP-LS
update is sent with SR Policy Candidate Path NLRIs for the first and
second candidate path with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* A-Flag cleared
and a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the third candidate path with
the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path is active and
carrying traffic
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
Assuming the case where only one candidate path is down, a BGP-LS
update is sent with a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the failed
candidate path with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* A-Flag cleared
a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the second candidate path with
the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate it is active and carrying traffic
network
and another SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the newly installed
third candidate path with the SR Candidate Path State TLV having the
* C-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path was provisioned by
the controller
* B-Flag set to 1 to indicate the role of backup path
Once the controller has detected the failure(s) that brought either
the first or the second candidate path down are cleared, a BGP-LS
update with a SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI for the affected
candidate path is sent to the controller with the SR Candidate Path
State TLV having the
* A-Flag set to 1 to indicate the candidate path became active again
The third candidate path is getting removed by a BGP UPDATE message
withdrawing the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI of the third candidate
path.
Again, restoration and reversion behavior is bidirectional. As
described in Section 8.1, both headends use connectivity verification
in loopback mode and therefore even in case of unidirectional
failures both headends will detect the failure or clearance of the
failure and switch traffic away from the failed or to the recovered
candidate path.
8. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
8.1. Connectivity Verification
The connectivity verification for each segment list on both headends
MAY be done using the Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP) (in loopback measurement mode as described in section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]) or Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) [RFC5880]. The use of STAMP is RECOMMENDED as it leverages a
single protocol session to be used for both connectivity verification
and performance measurement (see Section 8.2 of this document).
MB> You don't mention seamless BFD here, but that is commonly used for CC as it
is lightweight and allows extremely rapid detection of failures (<50ms) which
is a requirement of transport services. I would suggest adding that as an
option.
As the STAMP test packets are including both the segment list of the
forward and reverse path, standard segment routing data plane
operations will make those packets get forwarded along the forward
path to the tailend and along the reverse path back to the headend.
In order to be able to send STAMP test packets for loopback
measurement mode, the STAMP Session-Sender (i.e., the headend) needs
to acquire the segment list information of the reverse path:
* When using PCEP, the headend forms the bidirectional SR Policy
association using the procedure described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] and receives the information about
the reverse segment list from the PCE as described in section 4.5
of [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath]
* When using BGP, the controller does inform the headend routers
about the reverse segment list using the Reverse Segment List Sub-
TLV defined in section 4.1 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment].
For cases where multiple segment lists are used by a candidate path,
the headends will declare a candidate path down after connectivity
verification has failed for one or more segment lists because the
bandwidth requirement of the candidate path can no longer be met.
8.2. Performance Measurement
The same STAMP session used for connectivity verification is used to
estimate round-trip loss as described in section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm] and can be used to measure delay as
well.
As loopback mode is used, only round-trip delay can be measured.
Considering that candidate paths are co-routed, the delay in the
forward and reverse direction can be assumed to be identical. Under
this assumption, one-way can be derived by dividing the round-trip
delay by two.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
8.3. Candidate Path Validity Verification
A stateful PCE/controller is in sync with the headend routers in the
network topology and the CS-SR Policies provisioned on them. As
described in Section 5 a path MUST NOT be automatically recomputed
after or optimized for topology changes.
MB> Do you mean automatically recomputed by the network or the controller? If
the controller, then surely this is contradicts the following paragraph?
However, there may be a requirement for the stateful PCE/controller
to tear down a path if the path no longer satisfies the original
requirements, as detected by the stateful PCE/controller, such as
insufficient bandwidth, diversity constraint no longer met or latency
constraint exceeded.
For a CS-SR Policy configured with multiple candidate paths, a
headend may switch to another candidate path if the stateful PCE/
controller decided to tear down the active candidate path.
9. External Commands
External commands are typically issued by an operator to control the
candidate path state of a CS-SR Policy using the management interface
of:
* Headends: When the CS-SR Policy was instantiated via configuration
or PCEP PCC-initiated mode
* PCE/controller: When the CS-SR Policy was instantiated via BGP or
PCEP PCE-initiated mode
9.1. Candidate Path Switchover
It is very common to allow operators to trigger a switch between
candidate paths even if no failure is present, e.g., to proactively
drain a resource for maintenance purposes.
A operator triggered switching request between candidate paths on a
headend is unidirectional and SHOULD be requested on both headends.
MB> I assume you also mean simultaneously?
9.2. Candidate Path Re-computation
While no automatic re-optimization or pre-computation of CS-SR Policy
candidate paths is allowed as specified in Section 5, network
operators trying to optimize network utilization may explicitly
request a candidate path to be re-computed at a certain point in
time.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
10. Security Considerations
This document does provide guidance on how to implement a CS-SR
Policy leveraging existing mechanisms and protocol extensions. As
such, it does not introduce any new security considerations.
Security considerations for the SR Policy Architecture defined in
Section 10 of [RFC9256] do apply to this document.
Depending on how a CS-SR Policy is instantiated and reported, the
following security considerations do apply
* PCEP:
- Section 7 of [RFC8664]
- Section 6 of [RFC9603]
- Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
- Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]
- Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions]
- Section 10 of [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath]
- Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment]
* BGP:
- Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]
- Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]
* Configuration:
- Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang]
Depending on the protocol used for OAM, the following security
considerations do apply
* STAMP: Section 15 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]
* BFD: Section 9 of [RFC5880]
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
11. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
12. Acknowledgements
The author's want to thank Samuel Sidor, Mike Koldychev, Rakesh
Gandhi, Alexander Vainshtein, Tarek Saad, Ketan Talaulikar and Yao
Liu for providing their review comments, Yao Liu for her very
detailed shepherd review and all contributors for their inputs and
support.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Gredler, H., and J.
Tantsura, "Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using
BGP Link-State", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-17, 6 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
ls-sr-policy-17>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment]
Li, C., Li, Z., Yin, Y., Cheng, W., and K. Talaulikar, "SR
Policy Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional
Path", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-
sr-policy-path-segment-13, 2 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-sr-
policy-path-segment-13>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-sr-
policy-safi-13, 6 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-sr-
policy-safi-13>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions]
Sidor, S., Maheshwari, P., Stone, A., Jalil, L., and S.
Peng, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) extensions for Circuit Style Policies", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-
pcep-extensions-08, 5 May 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
circuit-style-pcep-extensions-08>.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
[I-D.ietf-pce-multipath]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P.,
Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., Peng, S., and G. S. Mishra, "PCEP
Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-multipath-13, 9
April 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-pce-multipath-13>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Sidor, S., Barth, C., Peng,
S., and H. Bidgoli, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment
Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-
27, 4 April 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing
(SR) Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pce-sr-bidir-path-15, 13 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-
bidir-path-15>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang]
Raza, S. K., Saleh, T., Zhuang, S., Voyer, D., Durrani,
M., Matsushima, S., and V. P. Beeram, "YANG Data Model for
Segment Routing Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang-05, 25 May 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
sr-policy-yang-05>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Janssens, B., Chen, M., and R.
F. Foote, "Performance Measurement Using Simple Two-Way
Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) for Segment Routing
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
spring-stamp-srpm-19, 20 June 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
stamp-srpm-19>.
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440>.
[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/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8231>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8660>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8697>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8754>.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
[RFC8800] Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity
Constraint Signaling", RFC 8800, DOI 10.17487/RFC8800,
July 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8800>.
[RFC9059] Gandhi, R., Ed., Barth, C., and B. Wen, "Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)",
RFC 9059, DOI 10.17487/RFC9059, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9059>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256>.
[RFC9488] Stone, A., Aissaoui, M., Sidor, S., and S. Sivabalan,
"Local Protection Enforcement in the Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 9488,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9488, October 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9488>.
[RFC9603] Li, C., Ed., Kaladharan, P., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
and Y. Zhu, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing",
RFC 9603, DOI 10.17487/RFC9603, July 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9603>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B.,
Francois, P., and P. Psenak, "Loop avoidance using Segment
Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-17, 29 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bashandy-
rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-17>.
[I-D.ietf-pals-ple]
Gringeri, S., Whittaker, J., Leymann, N., Schmutzer, C.,
and C. Brown, "Private Line Emulation over Packet Switched
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pals-ple-15, 12 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pals-
ple-15>.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Bashandy, A., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
21, 12 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-
segment-routing-ti-lfa-21>.
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", May 2020,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034>.
[RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2597, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2597>.
[RFC3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J.C.R., Benson, K., Le
Boudec, J.Y., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, DOI 10.17487/RFC3246, March 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3246>.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
(Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4427>.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4448>.
[RFC4553] Vainshtein, A., Ed. and YJ. Stein, Ed., "Structure-
Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet
(SAToP)", RFC 4553, DOI 10.17487/RFC4553, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4553>.
[RFC4842] Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., Ed., and D. Zelig,
"Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)",
RFC 4842, DOI 10.17487/RFC4842, April 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4842>.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
[RFC5086] Vainshtein, A., Ed., Sasson, I., Metz, E., Frost, T., and
P. Pate, "Structure-Aware Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)
Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network
(CESoPSN)", RFC 5086, DOI 10.17487/RFC5086, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5086>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5880>.
[RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8476>.
[RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8491>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8665>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8667>.
[RFC8668] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8668>.
[RFC8814] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", RFC 8814,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8814, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8814>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986>.
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
[RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9085>.
[RFC9352] Psenak, P., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing
over the IPv6 Data Plane", RFC 9352, DOI 10.17487/RFC9352,
February 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352>.
[RFC9356] Talaulikar, K., Ed. and P. Psenak, "Advertising Layer 2
Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF", RFC 9356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9356, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9356>.
[RFC9513] Li, Z., Hu, Z., Talaulikar, K., Ed., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)",
RFC 9513, DOI 10.17487/RFC9513, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9513>.
[RFC9514] Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Chen, M.,
Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "Border Gateway Protocol -
Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over
IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9514, DOI 10.17487/RFC9514, December
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9514>.
Contributors
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: [email protected]
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Email: [email protected]
Shuping Peng
Huawei Technologies
Email: [email protected]
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
Francois Clad
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Brent Foster
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Bertrand Duvivier
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Email: [email protected]
Authors' Addresses
Christian Schmutzer (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Zafar Ali (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Praveen Maheshwari
Airtel India
Email: [email protected]
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft CS-SR Policy June 2025
Reza Rokui
Ciena
Email: [email protected]
Andrew Stone
Nokia
Email: [email protected]
Schmutzer, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 31]
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
